![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
This is my first post to this twoplustwo. If I have selected an inappropriate forum for this topic, please let me know.
I was recently in LA and played a bit of low limit 7CS (2-4/3-6) at the Bicycle. It seemed that whenever a hand reached showdown (and almost all did), no one wanted to reveal thier cards first. When they finally did, it was in a painfully slow fashion, as though they were going for some sort of drama.
Of course, this slowed down the came considerably. Is this common in LA casinos?
Several times I asked the dealer to "please keep the game moving." However, I got the impression that the dealers thought I was asking them to deal the cards faster.
Has anyone else run into this and found a tactful and effective means of dealing with it?
Regards,
Bart Slater
This is a big part of the game. Stud players love to slow-roll and this is a major reason why I play mostly hold'em. LA is a horrible place for low limit stud because of the collection.
I agree about the collection and have written about it several times before. To see $3 dropped in "antes" before the hand begins leaving 50 cents in the middle (in a seven handed 3/6 game) leaves me in despair for the state of poker.
My guess is that the Hollywood act just slows down the rate of loss for everybody.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I love the types who catch a gut shot on the river, study the board for about a minute, stroke their chins, and then bet into my top two pair. I've seen this act far too may times. One question, and as an ex-floorperson I thought you might know the answer to this one, is it legal to call time, jump up, and run to the bathroom, yelling "I gotta piss real bad," and then come back to the table and fold?
John
PS.
Here's your answer in advance: Don't discourage the types who will give away their hands so easily.
John,
You wrote: “One question, and as an ex-floorperson I thought you might know the answer to this one, is it legal to call time, jump up, and run to the bathroom, yelling "I gotta piss real bad," and then come back to the table and fold?”
I never ran into this one so I really don’t have an answer. However, I’ve had more than one customer appear to piss in their pants rather than get up and make the fifty-foot trek to the bathroom.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. The best poker player needs to piss story involved Phil Helmuth but I think I have already told it before.
Yes, get on them about it. By that I mean jump down their throats.
It is stupid - a lot of players hate to show a loser I will at times make them show in correct order.
I have seen guys fold winners or possible winners when they were called on the river. It is just stupid.
Everything is in a LL HE #1...Raise or Fold Often we hesitate between fold or call ....and sometime between Call or raise but I have been involved in a hand where I hesitate between FOLD OR RAISE . I am BB and i do not remember what was my hand because I was board . The board is 4-4-Q_Q_4 and it has been checked all the way until the river, there was a raise pre-flop from an aggressive player . SB bets ; he's an aggressive player But he often slow play two pairs , triple and good hand like that . I think , maybe he has a 4 , he slowplayed it on the flop with the intention of check raise it but the flop has been check. On the turn , he would just call a bet because someone would have better full than him with a Q . But someone with a queen would have bet the flop in a late position . So the turn is checked and the river is a 4 . Well I fold , the pot was not big enough . The 3 other in the hand call . Everybody was board . Maybe if I have raise , they won't have call and I would have won . What was the best thing to do ?
I'll post the 3 other situation later cause i'm short in time now ...
#2. . .It was not a cool call , but a frozen call 10-20...HE ....we are 11 at the table and I am at the seat 8th . I have A-10o . Only 1 limper (seat5) . I call , seat 9 raise , seat 10 raise and the dealer cap the thing ...that bad for me .SB an BB fold seat 5 call. Once i am in , I too often call a raise . So , I slowly call this . The flop is A-2-7 . It's checked to me . I check because , maybe someone has a As with a better kicker . Everybody check it . WOW .turn is a 9 (no flush there) . seat5 check ; I bet , seat 9 , 10 and 11 fold , seat 5 call . The river is a 5 , I bet , she calls and she shows JJ . I win this 295$ pot ...seat 9 has QQ , 10 has KK and 11 KJs . I hit a very good flop for the hand I have . but the best flop that I could have it was J-Q-K and no pair after that . any comments ?
#3 they change their mind HE 10-20 I have AhAs and i'm the dealer . 2 limpers , I raise , SB and BB fold , they call . The flop come Ks-Js-3s .man1 bet( man 1 is a bluffer ), man 2 call and I raise , I have 4 spades and the best one . They fold ; I win a small pot any comments ?
#4 I raise and fold HE 10-20 I have AKo and i'm BB ; UTG raises , she is a thight player and she raises JJ-QQ-KK-AA-AKo-AKs and AQs . SB call and I call . The flop is A-J-8 rainbow , SB is a maniac , he bets , I raise and she re-raises , SB fold and I fold without any hesitation . I put her on AA or JJ Any comments ?
#5 Play with maniac he10-20 I'm on the dealer seat with Qh-10h . Maniac 1 raise , maniac 2 re-raise , I fold and my friend which was back to me told me that he would have cap it . I nead more people in the hand to play suited semi-connector .
(2) If AT isn't good enough to raise (Doh!) then is SURE isn't good enough to call 3 more bets. TERRIBLE call.
(3) It looks as though they know you will NOT raise with the stiff A draw (say AsKh). I therefore conclude that while you may semi-bluff BET you rarely RAISE without the goods. In any case, you should probably wait until the turn to raise THIS bluffer.
(4) Well played so long as you are SURE your raise will cause heroine to react naturally. Gotta know your player.
(5) You can gamble so long as you are SURE you will out-play them later. There is more money to be lost than won here, so don't lose any sleep over folding.
- Louie
If I read you correct there was a raise and 5 of you took the flop. On the river there was a bet and 3 calls. If the ALL play the board you win 1bb, if not you lose 1bb. I'm sure that if the chances of them ALL having nothing is bigger than 50% its not by much. Don't lose any sleep over this one.
Now a RAISE looks much better than calling, since it only costs 1bb more if you are wrong but if you are right surely most opponents will fold yielding more than 1bb more.
- Louie
Many years ago when I was growing up the word "gay" meant carefree and happy and had nothing to do with sexual preference. Someone could be called gay and not be homosexual. However, I can no longer use this word the way I used to because the meaning has so dramatically changed. Therefore, I have pretty much dropped it from my vocabulary.
I first heard the term "weak-tight" mentioned in 2+2 literature several years ago. I was under the impression the term applied to players who hardly ever raised pre-flop especially with their premium hands and players who failed to bet their good hands strongly in order to get full value from them. It also referred to players who would not pursue a draw when the pot odds were there to do so.
But over the past few years, it appears that the term "weak-tight" has become a pejorative term used to describe anyone who checks when someone else thinks they should bet or someone who calls when someone else thinks they should raise or someone who folds when someone else thinks they should call. For example, in Bob Ciaffone's excellent book "Improve Your Poker" he mentions how it is usually unwise to lead into a crowd of players once the flop comes without at least top pair in many cases. One poster put this on the hold-em forum and asked if this advice was not "weak-tight". Many responded and agreed that it was "weak-tight". T.J. Cloutier wrote an article for CardPlayer where he discussed the play of over cards and how players who continue to play just over cards in raised pots especially with lots of players have a major leak in their game. This was put on the 2+2 forum and labeled as "weak-tight" advice. Finally, Bob Ciaffone had a quiz that he included in his column in CardPlayer and it was posted on the 2+2 forum for review and comment. In some instances where Ciaffone recommended folding top pair/weak kicker when bet into on the flop with several players yet to act this answer got the "weak-tight" label stamped on it.
I can understand honest differences of opinion among even experts on how certain hands or situations should be handled. But I find the term "weak-tight" adds nothing to the discussion and I intend to drop it from my poker vocabulary.
What does everyone else think?
As you point out, the term is applied indiscrimintely by many in wholly inappropriate situations. There are certainly times when I will fold top pair or fold AK when rags fall even if there is no flop raise, but I can assure you that I am not weak-tight.
My definition of "weak-tight" is really someone who consistently fails to protect his hand by either betting or raising. Such a player tends to want to save bets rather than win pots. He also tends to assume way too often that someone else has or may have a better hand when there's a good chance that he may be holding the best hand (or has many ways to improve to it).
I have always thought there was 4 ways to describe a person's play: Loose Agressive; Loose Passive; Tight Agressive; Tight Passive.
Weak Tight = Tight Passive to me.
Later, CV
A tight player who can be "run over" is weak tight.
If you can "run a person over" does that not mean they are Passive?
CV
Yes. But the term runoverable has more kick to it than the term "passive".
Those four terms might be the best we can do. The same thing happens anytime we use a few labels to describe an infinite spectrum. Two other examples of the same 'problem' are
1) Liberal/Conservative/Moderate.
2) Atheist/Agnostic/Theist
(Are we allowed to talk politics and religion here? :-) )
These labels DO serve a purpose, to generalize, to narrow the focus. But without talking to the individual, we still don't know much about their specific views. Muddying the waters further, I might listen to someone talk and label them and 'atheist,' and they might insist that I call them an 'agnostic.'
Same with poker. I might call someone one thing, and you might call the same players something else, and they might view themselves as still something else.
Another difference between these labels and poker labels is that poker players can change in midsession from one label to another. That makes the poker labels even more prone to being misunderstood or inaccurate.
Tommy
I understand the variations between the 4 Pigion Holes are infinite, I just use them to get a grasp on how a person tends to play in certain situations. I also use them to label myself through my opponent's eyes.
CV
I have come up with two more player classifications: the Novice Random Player and the Expert Random Player. These two are what I call "shape shifters", they constantly change personalities (from tight passive to loose aggressive to tight aggressive to loose passive) during the course of a session, and across sessions, in a random manner. But they do so for totally different reasons. The Novice Random Player shape shifts because he does not know what he's doing. Confusion is the driver behind his constant and random shape shifts. But the Expert Random Player shape shifts because he wants to throw his opponents off by being a constantly moving target. The quest for strategic advantage (thru the use of advanced level knowledge, skill, and experience) is the driver behind his random shape shifts. In short, there are 6 types of poker players: 1)tight-aggressive 2)loose-aggressive 3)tight-passive 4)loose-passive 5)novice random and 6)expert random. In fullhanded ring games, the Expert Random Player is the most dangerous followed by the tight-aggressive player. In shorthanded/heads up games, the Expert Random Player is the most dangerous followed by the loose-aggressive player.
I have to agree with Chris on this one. We all want to be tight agressive because that's what supposedly gets the money. A person who is weak tight would be playing the proper hands at the proper time but not really maximizing his wins by betting or raising when his opponents show weakness. In other words weak tight does not go for the throat. I would hazard a guess that someone who is weak tight would not be a loser, they would just not win as much as some others would with their cards. Unfortunately, as Jim notes, the expression has come to mean that the person who is weak tight is playing the hand like a little girl. I think this is going too far. There's a difference between playing conservatively and playing scared.
In my private notes I label players knockable off their hands as "weak".
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
"Weak" is certainly an ambiguous term as used in poker literature and forums. Many treat the term as a synonym for passive, while others use it to refer to any poor player. Izmet's definition differentiates the term from the passive/aggressive continuum. However, I suspect the term has become too muddled to be useful (though I can't promise I won't slip and use it :).
Pre | Post
Weak-Tight
I look at weak/tigh as a player that is not playing strongly at any stage of the game (Pre-flop, Post flop)
They will not raise with top cards pre-flop (Weak) and will be afraid to bet/raise/protect when in the lead post flop.(tight)
These types have a table image as the name implies weak/tight and you can spot them within a few orbits.
Best of it !!
MJ
I have often descrobed my play as semi-tight semi-aggressive a term I picked up from TJ - I think it is important to properly classify opponents in order to play them correctly.
If a player isn't playing a lot of hands and folds to raises I suspect them of W-T play - this is a player I will bluff when I have situational position over them. Some times the suprise you - Other day at Aurora I flopped top top (pair in board) led the betting a true weak tight checked called to the river never raising once and showed a full house - I was worried about him calling to the river but I thought it was a good chance he was drawing to a big hand.
He lost one or two bb (there was a player to the turn).
Sometimes aggression is a leak in my game as it might have been here.
"Weak-tight" players are "gay".
Poker Veteran,
You never fail to amaze. Where do you come up with nonsense like this?
What is it about being weak, tight, and happy that you find so non-sensical?
Ok, you got me on that one.
But you’re showing your age because we both know that no one in today’s world associates the term “gay” with being happy.
Are you happy?
If you are then you’re gay.
It's nice to know that you're happy, son.
.
Astute assessment.
Further, that your proposal to abandon the term generates responses of form, "When I hear the term, it means [one of N possible nuances of the term, where N is the number of respondents]," indicates that the term tends to obfuscate.
Good topic, Jim. Language shifts like wind-blown sand. It's good to review and tweak along the way.
I stopped using the phrase "weak tight" a few years ago. Since then it's been watered down even further by over-usage.
Funny thing about "weak tight." I could call you (or some other player) "weak tight." You could call me "weak tight." In our own minds, we might be using the phrase properly. But then we could both rebut, offended, and say, "ME? I ain't one of those weak tight players! I'm better than that!"
If a lable is frequently applied to people who would not agree that the lable applies to themselves, then it becomes meaningless.
And how many players would stand up and be counted if asked "Are you a weak-tight player?" Very few, I suspect. The word "weak" is quite a turn off for anyone who works on their game and takes pride in their effort.
Tommy
Tommy, no one who ever played with you would ever call you "weak-tight". "Weak-tight" you are not.
Played some 5-10 stud at Foxwoods this weekend at a great table. Sitting next to me was an older gentleman who's playing way too many hands much too far, and winning more than his fair share of them. He was just laughing and joking it up, regardless of how his stack fluctuated.
Some of the LOL's (not very good players, BTW) were fed up with him "chasing and drawing every single pot". They vocally criticized him in voices that were easily loud enough for him to hear. The older gentleman next to me heard some of this, and his mood and his game tightened up a bit for a little while.
My question is: how do I keep the little old ladies from insulting the guy next to me without getting them ticked off at me, as well? Do I...
a.) Tell them that openly criticizing another's play is against the rules in this room, and that I'll call the floor the next time it happens;
b.) Engage the older gentleman in conversation immediately after he wins a pot, so he can't hear the other players criticizing him; or,
c.) Some other suggestion?
comment to him, under your breath "what the hell do they know, you dragged the pot and they didn't"
tell him that they are live ones
Ho Brasileiro! Boa idea, e boa sorte para voce para todos os jogos. Ciao.
the only word i recognize from your post is "Boa" which means, a big snake... can you please translate into english what you mean? sayonara
The name Celso is a common Brazilian name, and I am not familiar with it other than that. Therefore I guessed that you might be Brazilian. I had some friends in past years who taught me some Brazilian Portuguese. The post says:
"Ho, Brasileiro!" (Greeting and recognition of a Brazilian in an energetic, friendly, and casual manner).
"Boa idea, e boa sorte para voce para todos os jogos" (Good idea, and good luck to you in all the games). Although "para" mean "for", as it does in Spanish, the English would appear unwieldy perhaps if translated it literally. The word "sorte" may be analagous to "suerte" or strength, in Spanish, or it may not--I am not sure. My friend told me in the 80's that to wish a gambler luck you say "boa (good) sorte." The spelling of sorte I am unsure of and in Brazilian Portuguese the "t" is often pronounced almost like a "tch" in English. There are many similarities to Spanish (and Italian). For instance the number 20 in Spanish is "veinte." In Br. Portuguese it is "vinte", with the "t" sounding like "tch." In some ways Portuguese may be closer to Italian than to Spanish.
My spelling might be slightly off. "Ciao" is commonly used as we might use "Bye" or "See you later."
More thanyou may have wanted to know, perhaps, but I did rather like your idea.
thanks for the explaination. all along, i thought you were speaking italiano. ciao
I am ALWAYS the first one to sincerly say "nice hand sir" when I live one gets there, whether I am in the pot or not. If I hear someone else grumbling I will repeat it again and louder, it usually shuts up the whiner.
This is my biggest pet peeve especially when the whining comes from a winning player. Do they want the live ones to make only correct calls next time??? Wise up.
Derek
Idiot Vig,
You are my type of guy. I too hate to see criticism of other player's strategy at the table.
Anyway, I'm happy to see Foxwoods still has a policy on this but I'm guessing it is not well enforced. But I like answer b). I never thought of that but I'll give it a try.
My only suggestion is that if the offender is a regular player that you have some relationship with try to pick a later time to convince him or her that this activity serves no ones interest. But try to be more diplomatic than Mason is or I used to be ;-).
Regards,
Rick
This is actually listed on the Poker Policies board at the front of the room, near the low-limit stud brush board. It's about halfway down the list.
As far as enforcement is concerned, I've never seen this brought up anywhere, but have been tempted to use it some times. Unfortunately, as in this case, I didn't want to reprimand a worse player. Now, if a rock was going on and on about some of the hands a live one was playing, it'd be different. But I wanted practically everyone at the table still in the game.
Idiot Vig,
A few months after Foxwoods opened, I went back East to visit my folks in Rhode Island and played a couple times. On that visit I witnessed two occasions where the policy was enforced. Both were at an adjacent table at the middle limits. In one case they gave a warning and the player complied. In the other case the player couldn’t resist continuing with his crass behavior and was actually dealt out and his chips were picked up. I thought it was a great day for poker.
Apparently, this good idea went south like many policies that require constant vigilance. One reason may be that the players lost after being barred for bad behavior are easy to quantify. The players gained due to providing a more civil atmosphere are hard if not impossible to quantify. And since poker is essentially a non-competitive business, managers with guts, instinct and vision rarely rise to break new ground and build upon it.
BTW, did the policy read something like the following: As long as a customer bets, calls, checks or raises in accordance with the rules, his tactics shall not be subject to criticism from other players.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I can check for you on the exact wording, but I believe the wording is closer to what you'd find in a zoo: Don't pester the animals.
John
Yes, Foxwoods does have a posted rule.
HOWEVER, I believe there is MORE criticism of plays and players, and discussion of hands over the tables, than at ANY casino I have ever played at.
Correction: It may be inaccurate to say "MORE." The correct wording should be "FAR MORE."
At some point, when he wins a pot, pay him a sincere compliment about his play. Find something specific to comment on in what he did, and mean it. You can always tell a player player like this that they are tough, that they don't give up good hands with potential and can't be bluffed. Specific compliments are worth 10,000 more ego and egg-on points than all the vague criticism of a losing player.
Sometimes direct a remark to the table in general: " Are we having free poker lessons today? Can we just play poker?"
It may work in that instead of being received in the context of defending bad play, you are just saying can we just play poker. Maybe they shut up. If it does not work, sometime lean forward and look at the commentator and just give that "give me a break look!"
If indirect tactics are ineffective, you might say something like: "Perhaps you do not realize how rude your comments are."
Tell the old man you were changing their goddamn diapers when you started playing poker!!
paul
I've recently become a regular at a room that features loose/passive,friendly games.Have noticed a trend that I find disturbing,but have been told is nothing to worry about.Situation 1)seated next to a regular(I'm not in hand),call him player A,he is honest and respected(written up by Poker Digest as one of the best low limit players in Vegas)he raises player B re-raises and eventually wins hand.Player A whispers to me that he can't believe Player B re-raised because they have been playing against one another for years and 'He usually soft plays me'.Next day same faces,Player A in blind flops full house,Player B is his only opponent.Player A bets and turns over cards,B smiles and throws away his hand. Situation 2)Loose aggressive in seat one,his girlfriend in seat5,she is loose will play too many too far consistantly.They are both in most hands,he will try to bully out other players.At conclusion of hands they have been involved in together the winner of pot will toss the loser the chips they lost.I get up go over to a regular I respect and suggest this hurts game they are clearly not independent and knowing that they will get some losses back would influence play against others.I am told theres nothing wrong with it.Comment?
I see people soft playing each other quite a bit, I don't like it, but usually weak players are doing it and I don't want to chase them.
The other situation you mentioned (players tossing stacks to each other) is quite different. I saw this happen in a 3/6 game at Canterbury Park recently. One of the floor people saw it happen and immediately put a stop to it.
In a home game I play in, a guy and his girlfriend both play and do this frequently. They also "co-play" her hands when he's out and she'll ask him for advise. If they weren't constantly losing 1500 a week, it might be a problem, but since he's a lot of action, satify the customer.
Ah, the subjectivity of ethics.
I don't think that soft-playing or returning bets is inherently 'wrong.' It depends on the players, the game, and the house. From the vantage of players who came to make money, then yes, it 'hurts' the game. But from the vantage of the players who are there to have fun and not beat up on their good friends, returning money seems 'right' and natural.
My experience is that these type of players harbor no bitterness if asked to stop. They know its against the rules to pass chips. So if someone complains, they'll oftentimes stop doing it without a wimper. I think the best way to complain is to take the floorman aside and ask him to remind the table of the rules.
Tommy
There are a couple people who I will routinely soft play heads up in live (not online) poker. I will only do this when I want that person to stay in the game.
There is one person in particular who is absolutely fantastic to have at the table. She is a casino employee, gorgeous, and loves to raise and reraise with any Ax or Kx suited.
The other guys in the game just love being in pots with her (gives them a reason to talk to her maybe), so she creates fantastic action just by being at the table.
She usually loses, so if I get into a pot headsup with her, I always fold or softplay, preferably fold early. The LAST thing I want to do is separate her from her ammunition too soon.
What often happens is that she folds on the flop when her draw doesn't hit, leaving the other guys married to their bad hands.
Of course, I don't just toss stacks of chips to her, but I have been guilty of dumping a few to her when I thought I might have her beat.
When the pot is multi-way, soft playing is out of the question and no one draws for free, including her.
But the last thing I want to do is have her not want to play on my table. When she busts out, it is always to someone else.
Where I play there are about 6 cardrooms (most with only one table) that run steady games. There is a partnership seeking to place another cardroom in a local casino (that does not currently offer poker). They have approached me with an offer to be one of their steady house players.
I currently play at all of the cardrooms in town. I am selective, however, about the games I enter. Every cardroom manager in town knows me, as do all the dealers. I have played for the house at other establishments, but only rarely. I've received many offers, but I dislike it because of how they require house players to play and because I hate giving up a large portion of a win (usually 50%) to the house. This new cardroom has already given me the ok to play my regular game (for example, they will allow me to check-raise, etc.) They have offered me the typical deal of 50% of the win.
I win at least 2/3 of the time I play and average 1.5-2.5 bets per hour in the games I play (depending on the structure).
This new cardroom has one other planned house player. He is, in my opinion, not a very strong player, but he certainly knows what he is doing (long-term he is probably a small loser).
The primary game that will be played will be 5-10 with potential for overs (probably 10-20). I expect that playing for the house will (a) reduce my variance (b) reduce my winnings.
I am interested in others' thoughts on playing for the house, particularly players who have done so. The main drawback, as I see it, is that I will not be able to select the game I'm in (and will, at times, miss out on great games that are at other cardrooms). Moreover, it will probably reduce my win rate (though if the overs is played frequently enough then I may be able to counter that as 10-20 and up is not spread here often).
i assume they put up all the money and you get 50% of what you win each day and start fresh the next time whether you lose or win, then its a no brainer that playing for the house is great. if its over a period of time that you get 50% of what you win dont if you are sure you will be playing a winning game. the down side is you lose your independence.
Tell them you want an hourly pay, and will keep all winnings and stand all losses yourself. This is what a proposition player does.
If as Ray says they are willing to square up with you on a daily basis you almost have to be better off than being paid as a prop. On the other hand, if they will only square up after a relatively long length of time, you are better off going for the prop salary.
I am not familiar with the type of arrangement you are being offered. I have worked as a proposition player, playing with my own money and keeping all wins (and absorbing losses) for a fixed salary. The arrangement you are considering may be preferable if you lack a bankroll (or for losing players).
I am familiar with a "shill" who plays for a set salary and the entire stake remains the house. Such players are often instructed to play very tight.
I am also familiar with a "prop" who plays for a set salary and the entire stake remains his own. The house pays him to play in certain games.
I am not familiar with this "play for the house, keep 50%" stuff. They stake you and you keep 50% of your win and they obsorb all losses? If so, sign me up.
- Louie
In pool halls this is a standard relationship. The stake horse gets 50% of the wins and absorbs all the losses. Most, if not all, stake horses are suckers. That's another story.
In poker the down side of this type of arrangement is the house tightening and weaking your play. The up side is you keep more than 50%. For example: in a 5-10 game you play 20 hours in four five-hour sessions. You win $100 the first three sessions and lose $100 in the final session for a total win of $200, or $10 per hour. When staked, you whack the $300 in wins, the house eats the $100 loss, for $150 gain or $7.50 per hour. Viola: 75%
From what A.Z. says, he can play his own game. This means he can introduce more variance and end up with an even sweeter deal. Sounds good but I don't know how long it can last...
In your example a normal player is up $200 after the 4 sessions but the house player is up only $150. Yes, you would keep more than half your NET winnings.
I win about as often as I lose but the wins are larger. But, the average win on a winning day is NOT twice the average loss on a losing day so I would be glad to erase my losses and half my wins.
Plus, if I had such a deal the temptation to play crazy when losing, in an effort to "get even", would be too great since additional losses would be meaningless to me.
This arrangement would favor a high varience player like myself but would probably NOT favor more conservative types who probably win a little far more often than they lose.
- Louie
I think you need to provide more information.
But I will say that reducing your win while reducing your varience can be a VERY good thing if either you have a very small bankroll or your life is currently in some turmoil. With the reduced stress at the table you can deal better with off-table issues, and you may find that you are actually playing better.
- Louie
Basically the deal is that your losses on losing days go away because the house stakes you, and your winnings on winning days are cut in half because you must pay the house their share.
Therefore, it seems to me that this is a good deal for you if your losses from losing sessions total more than half of your winnings from winning sessions. My suggestion is to look back at your win/loss records for the past few months or so, total up the losses and the wins and see where you come out. If losses > (wins / 2), then go for it. :)
-Andy
Sounds like a compromise between being an ass kisser, like all 9 to 5 working people are, and being an "I'm my own boss" ass kicking 24/7 poker player.
Has anything intelligent ever come out of your mouth?
Bruce
Forget about reasoning with him, Bruce.
PokerVeteran is the forum equivalent of a 'calling station.'
He is completely predictable, does same thing over and over again regardless of the situation, never changes and doesn't add much to the game.
He's an easy mark - too easy.
Sounds like a compromise between being and ASS KISSER, LIKE ALL 9 TO 5 WORKING PEOPLE ARE, and being an "I'm my own boss" ass kicking 24/7 poker player.
Something intelligent is about to come out of my mouth: You're a miserable vomitous mass of moronity!!!
For a stupid fuck like yourself I am surprised you know how to spell correctly and you actually were able to incorporate several three syllable words into a sentence. You must have made it at least through the fourth grade, probably took you two times at least.
Bruce
Son, you need to learn how to respect your elders. God bless you and may the spirits that make you deluded get confused as they follow you to your home at the end of each day.
I retired over a year ago and enjoy my independence. I play 2 to 5 times a week. At some point I played tighter and began to see increased winnings. But it also became less entertaining at times. Nowadays I do fine overall, but I know its not as good as more disciplined play.
With that said, is this deal about money or you? If you don't need to work for someone, why give up your independence. It may be that it is a better deal but you will have to march to their drum beat. You play for the HOUSE or yourself. Unless money is really is a factor here, be your own boss.
Thanks for all the great responses so far.
As someone pointed out, this situation is not exactly shilling or propping. Incidentally, each session is judged independently. That is, if I lose one session then it will not carry over to the next session.
As I see it, it is an opportunity to greatly reduce my variance. Essentially, I will have no losses and smaller wins. I don't think the house would appreciate me playing a "higher variance" game than I normally play -- indeed, the reason I've been offered this job is because I am a pretty conservative player.
The biggest downside I see is that I will not be able to "shop around" as much for the best games because I will be in a specific cardroom most of the time. This means that I may miss the games that would have given me the biggest wins.
I am going to give it a try and if I feel that the reduced variance does not outweigh a cut in my hourly rate then I will continue. I'm planning on using 200 hours of play to get a feel for how I like the situation (about one month).
Thanks again for the input.
Can anyone tell me what the term Montana Banana refers to?
I believe it refers to a goofy hand like Nine-Deuce suited or something. It refers to a specific hand like the "gay waiter" which is Queen-Trey.
Montana banana is a starting hand - 92 (preferably offsuit - it's more 'macho'.)
I am not sure how the name originated. Maybe you can ask Ray Zee? He lives in Montana.
-SmoothB-
Buffalo,
It is the 92 offsuit. I always assumed that it was a Montana player bragging about the size of a certain body part but an RGP thread of a year or so ago seemed to indicate otherwise.
Regards,
Rick
I heard it was it was so named because it is extremely rare to find a banana growing in Montana and this hand has about the same chances of winning.
Like most NAMED hands it should be avoided. Computer Q7 - Doyle Brunson T2 - Broadrick Crawford T4 - Jackson 5 J5 - big lick 69 - hell even the dead mans hand A8 - dogs all dogs.
Now there are some decent NAMED hands big slick AK - Big chick AQ - eyes of Texas, pocket rockets, American Airlines AA and the cowboys KK.
Rounder, you forgot Siegfried and Roy - QQ.
Hey, don't get down on gays you know 1/2 of them were born that way and the other half got sucked in.
:-)
Someone still has to come up with a nickname for JJ. Maybe you or Vince Lepore could come up with one. BTW, what's ROFLMAO?
I like to call JJ
"DYN-O-MITE!"
But nobody gets it.
I don't get it.
JJ is "Dyn-o-mite" Jimmy Walker!
Vince
Now I get it. JJ is Rerun's friend. I used to watch that show.
LOL,
No, Rerun was on "What's Happening", not "Good Times."
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.
nt
The law that made poker legal in Montana was Proposition 92 or Proposition 29. I don't recall which one. Either way, I heard this explanation of the origin of nine-deuce as the "Montana Banana" from two dealers that lived in Montana when the law was passed.
As to the banana thing, well, they didn't have any theories so cogent, except that it looks nice and rhymes.
Tommy
Actually, it has nothing to do with poker, but refers to a San Fransisco 49ers incident a few years ago involving a locker room and a parcticular linebacker. It's all very hush hush, no one would discuss it on the record.
x
I was told by a poker plyer from Montana that this hand (9,2) got its name because it was proposition 92 that officially legalized gambling in Montana.
z
Here's the thing. I don't like using the free card raise as listed in the 2+2 books very much at all anymore because so many players have become "hip" to it. I have tried a variation of it that has seemed to work well at the start at 15-30 and 20-40 games. The reason that I think it has workedbecause of the fact that they haven't read about it and the fact that it is not standard reading material. But we have to vary our game a little right? I'm trying to be original.
Instead of using the free card raise in late position, use it in early position via the check raise. Then check the turn and confuse the heck out of them. I have used this move 5 times and it has worked every time that I have used it and the straight got there 3 times. The other two times I was able to bet the blank on the river and successfully bluff the pot out and take it down. Now what I do to set this up is to check raise the turn if someone bets again to really set this up. I risk losing the bet but in my quest to keep opponents guessing I try it. I don't use it frequently but in the right spots it puts fear into my opponents to know that I have some strong moves not listed in the book. BTW, there is a world champion that sits in on the game once in a while and he has been the victim if this play 3 times. Please let me know how sound this play is or if I should scrap it all together and I have just been lucky. Thank you for your time.
Gregg
Actually we have written about this play here and there. It works well against the right people.
I patented that move a year ago - you owe me a $50 royalty. :-)
This play works best againt those kinds of players who are easily intimidated by a SINGLE raise. As you said you need to set it up with a couple real double check-raises, but generally do THIS against aggressive types who need to be raised a couple times before they become predictable.
Only top notch opponents will notice you check-raise twice against assertive types but check-raise for free-cards against more paranoid types.
I would like to point out that there are few lagitamate check-raise-for-free-card premium early position hands, but there are lots when played from the blinds. Keep this in mind when trying to ballance a strategy against bright types.
- Louie
I've used this play at the same levels with success many times. The term "free"card as defined by the dynamic duo does not apply here. Semi-bluff may be more appropriate. If you do this often enough against the right players you will find that you sometimes win the pot right there on the flop or with a check-raise on the flop and then a bet on the turn. This is simialr to the situation that Jim Brier wrote about a few weeks ago, He had a four flush on the flop. He was check-raised by the SB, His best play would have been to reraise and then bet the turn. He called then called the turn and the river was checked. He lost to K high. Your play is an aggressive one that's why I refer to it more as a semi bluff. I believe if you make this play your best turn strategy is to bet. The final point that needs to make is that as David says it works better against the right opponent. It is not something to try against a calling station. Actually against a calling station it can be a good free card play. You probably check the turn against one of them. It works better against a weak or strong player that bets and isn't likely to have much given the flop. Tough players make this play themselves so you may want to leave them alone.
Vince
Where have you been? Many people are "hip" to this checkraise freecard maneuver too.
The traditional "raise the flop" free card move works for me just fine in late position, as long as I have from time to time been betting the flop with top pair or an over pair, and then betting the turn with the same hand.
This play is as old as the hills. Most people I play with won't fall for it - neither will I.
The best way to use this ploy is to take it to the next level.
If the flop comes with 2 suited cards and you flop a set, checkraise the flop. On the turn, when you check, people will think you checkraised your draw and may bet again. Then you can checkraise AGAIN!
You have to bet the river if the flush doesn't come because most people aren't dumb enough to fall for this 3 times unless they have you beaten.
This play works because everyone with a clue knows about the checkraise-for-the-free-card semibluff and expect it - it can works if it looks like there is a good draw on the board - like the flush or straight.
The reason why most people don't fall for this play is this - if you checkraised the flop with a strong hand, why bother risking losing out on a double sized bet on the turn? Obviously you were trying to buy a free card from early position and now everyone knows what you have.
If you do it MY way, then everyone will assume you have a draw that isn't there yet - now you can checkraise again with that set.
It works best with sets, by the way, because if the flop is all little cards with a 2 flush on board, this move screams 'flush draw'. That's why the checkraise will work 2 times.
-SmoothB-
Here is another play to try.
Obviously if the board looks really ragged with no draws, a checkraise will look like a strong hand. No one will think you are checkraising for a free card if no draw is there.
So, let's say that you have AK and the flop is all little cards. You are in early position and there is a loose player in late position that you know will bet if he's checked to.
Check raise with overcards. You still want a free card on the turn and you might get it. You also will knock some people out which helps you a lot.
IE if the flop is T 7 2 your checkraise might get an A7 to fold, where they might have called one bet. You definitely want to get A7 out of this hand pronto.
-SmoothB-
Last night I had A-x suited against KQs. We both flopped a flush draw. I bet the flop, he check-raised, and made it three bets, rebuying my free card, dangit! He called.
We both checked the turn, both thinking we were getting away with something.
I see the check-raise on a draw play often. But your pre-planned double-check-raise play, well, that's a doozy!
Tommy
IMO, this play can be used less frequently and with more risk than the late position semi-bluff raise. Thinking players will suspect that you are on a draw when you check-raise the flop and then check the turn. [And setting-up the play by attempting to check-raise twice with a real hand may be difficult and costly.] The fact that good players may have given you a free turn-card after you check-raised the flop does not necessarily mean your play worked; they may have wanted a free card more than you!
You not only hit the nail squarely on the head, you drove it - with one swing of your hammer - exactly where it was targeted. If it's OK with you, I think I'll look for some softer pasture. I'm not in any great hurry to sit cross the table from you.
PS - I did not read all of the posts in this thread; there may have been others whose replies were on the $$ - this is not an attempt on my part to smear the rest of those who chimed in.
Accurate, clear and concise. I can usually manage 2 of 3, but seldom hit a triple.
Nice job...
I've seen this play by several opponents and dubbed it "the idiot's free card play". It doesn't work against me twice and rarely works once. Out of position you can not grant a free card.
-Fred-
Thanks to all who posted. I will keep it in the arsenal but will use it sparingly and selectively. Really appreciate the input. Good luck at the tables. More theory topics to come!
Some winning players tell me they never play drawing hands - that statement confuses me!
(1) Definition of a drawing hand preflop - This varies depending on who you are talking to. What do you consider a drawing hand pre-flop?
A2s - 76s - 44 - JTo
AK or AQ could be considered a drawing hand, after all you do not have a "made hand" (a pair)
(2) Definition of a drawing hand after the flop -
(a) JTs flop As 4s Kd
(b) 54o flop J 6 3
(c) 66 flop 8 7 5
* These could obviously be drawing hands (at this point)
(3) Do they mean they will not continue on the flop with a drawing hand, obviously with poor odds they may decide to muck.
All comments appreciated!
Bob,
Speaking only of preflop, we could defining a 'drawing hand' as "a hand that is unlikely to be the best hand."
7-6 -- a drawing hand J-10 -- a drawing hand
I left out suitedness because it is irrelevent if the above definition is used.
A2 -- In some cases, say, on the button against the blinds, this is not a drawing hand. But if there is heavy action in front of me before the flop, I might consider it a drawing hand.
44 -- same as A2, but generally less likely to be demoted to 'drawing hand' by the betting.
Your postflop examples. J-10 is a drawing hand. 5-4 is a drawing. With the 66, unless I had already demoted it to a draw before the flop by being dang sure someone had a bigger pocket pair, I would presume that I have the best hand on the flop, meaning 66 would not be a drawing hand in this case. Then, if the action forced reconsideration, I could think I need to make a straight or set to win, meaning the 66 was now a drawing hand.
Tommy
Tommy,
The term "drawing hand," in my opinion, takes on something of an interesting meaning in hold'em. In 7CS, the drawing hands are, as you are most likely aware, include the 3-to-a-straight and 3-to-a-flush hands, as opposed to those hands that contain a pair (a made hand).
A convienient definition for a "drawing hand" in holdem might be: Any hand that must improve in order to win in a showdown. Of course, if you have a good line on your opponents holding, what would ordinarily be a drawing hand can qualify as a made hand. For instance, you hold AKo and are certain your opponent holds JTo and the flop comes low unsuited rags.
My question regarding your post is this: You Stated: "A2 -- In some cases, say, on the button against the blinds, this is not a drawing hand." I am curious about this.
It seems, against the blinds (particularly unraised) that there are 4 very random cards out against you and that you are, indeed, drawing to an ace.
Assuming 4 different random cards in your opponents hands, and ignoring any straight or flush possibilities, I find a 7.1697% chance of A2 holding up against two random unpaired hands without anyone improving (28/46)(27/45)(26/44)(25/43)(24/42) = 11,793,600/164,490,460 = 7.1697%.
I have just begun my forray into theoretical poker math, so please check my numbers and do not hesitate to point out any errors.
Bear in mind, please, that I write this post out of curiosity and a desire to further my understanding of the game. My intent is not argumentative.
Regards,
Bart Slater
Hi Bart,
My definition of 'drawing hand' was based on the here and now. At each street, all hands but the best one are drawing. Against two random hands (the blinds), an ace is likely to BE the best hand, right? I mean, if you deal two random starting hands a zillion times, most of the time an ace beats them both, at that time, before the flop.
So if I enter a pot with an ace against the blinds, say, by raising them from the button, there's no way I would think to myself, "Okay, I'm on a draw." And that was the gist of Bob's question; which hands, in which spots, do we consider to be drawing hands.
If it turns out that one of them has, say, AK, then yes, I am on a draw. But at the time that I entered the pot, I rated to have the best hand, therefore, not drawing.
I did not understand the relevence of your calculation about A-2 winning 7% of the time against two random hands, and your conclusion that the A2 is therefore drawing to an ace. If the opponents have a non-pair non-ace hand, then it is THEY who are drawing, right? And if one of them DOES have an ace, that means the A2 is drawing to a deuce or a straight or a flush, right?
In any case, I'm not looking to argue either, just babble and learn. And I can't check your math for you. When I first clicked on "2+2," I was drawn by a concept I could understand. :-)
Tommy
I agree with this, noting that the "best" hand is defined as those highest on the ranking of hands chart. AKs is "better" than JJ.
These players don't play hands unless its "probably" the best hand.
- Louie
Maybe it is my tournament experience coming out in me but I just don't play drawing hands except on the button. I will play AXs and most pairs but need the right game and won't usually play them to a raise.
Drawing is the biggest cause of players losing money. Most don't know when to draw and if you listen to S&M they only need odds just a bit better than the draw odds to make it. NOT me I want much better odds to get in a drawing contest and it has to be for the nuts.
man, your tight
One of the problems with drawing hands is the concept of "outs". Supposedly, if one of your "outs" arrives you are supposed to win the pot. But this ignores things likes someone else having the same outs to a better hand (e.g.-flush draw vs nut flush draw) or to the same hand (e.g.- you have a one card straight draw, you hit one of your "outs", but someone else makes the same straight so you only get half the pot, etc.). In addition, there are such things as redraws. A two flush flops and you make a straight on the turn only to have the third flush card come at the river giving someone else a flush.
Most players are overly optimistic about their drawing hands and what their "outs" really are. Nevertheless, drawing hands can be profitable if played correctly.
There are a lot of factors to be considered in playing drawing hands. Some of these are pointed out in above posts esp. by Jim Brier. Let's try a quick list for evaluating implied odds. The chances that:
1) you will make your hand
2) your hand will be good if you make it
3)you will get paid off if you do make it and it is good
4)you might have to split the pot if you make it
5) you are subject to a raise right now (assuming you are not last to act.
In a post above, Rounder mentions having what appear to be extremely tight qualifications for playing his own drawing hands. While he is missing some profit opportunities, I would suggest that it keeps him out of a great deal of trouble by avoiding many problems associated with the list above. I think that many players do not fully weigh all the above factors when deciding whether to play for implied odds or not. In other words I think Rounder's approach will allow to play better poker than many more sophisticated players who have less than very good judgment for just when to play hands requiring implied odds. This would probably be even more true in PL/NL.
So while Rounder's approach will provide inferior results compared to the approach of someone like David Sklansky or Louie Landale, who understand both the underlying principles and the math behind the situation, in a great many cases Rounder's approach will outperform the approach of those who have read a fair amount the game and are eager to exercise their newfound knowledge. It should also outperform many pretty good players,because mistakes like overvaluing the value of a draw is a common error that even pretty good players make, especially if they have a tendency to play a bit on the loose side. Note that players who overvalue draws who know about odds usually do so because they are not taking a correct accounting of all of the factors that have the potential to devalue their draw.
You are correct it is more productive in PL & NL a strategy I picked up in tournaments and it made it's way to my live game play.
BTW the results are NOT inferior so long as I stick to my game plan.
In pot limit and no limit games your opponnet can control the odds that you are getting on your draw. He does this by simply betting more than your draw is worth -- thus giving you poor odds on your call, and by going all in so that you cannot collect if you make your hand. Since tournaments are essentially a weak form of no limit some of these characteristics carry over. Thus it should be clear that drawing hands do not have the value that they can have in ring game limit poker where you are often getting overwhelming odds (both pot and implied) to make your hand.
But isn't the implied odds at no limit determined in a big way by the amount of your call now relative to the total amount in the bettor's stack? In other words, if it's the turn, I have the nut flush draw, there is 15 units currently in the pot, the opponent (who has a made hand) bets 100 units, he has has $2000 (which I have covered). Shouldn't I call here based on implied odds? David Sklansky has an example of this in Theory of Poker. In that book, he uses the gut shot made by Stu Ungar against Doyle Brunson during the 1980 WSOP, as an example.
That's correct. But if I take that into account and bet the right amount I will want you to call with a draw.
So you're going to bet an amount that if called will give me a slight negative expectation on my draw? Obviously, you're going to make it seem like I'm getting a good price on my call, right?
When do you not stick to your game plan?
By how much will David Sklansky's and Louie Landale's approach outperform Rounder's per hour?
By the amount of the sum of their expected values on each opportunity that Rounder would have missed divided by the number of hours played
To the preceding formula append "plus or minus their expected values on all other plays versus Rounder's expected values on all other plays"
And what would be the corresponding difference in standard deviation? In other words, how much more of a bankroll would Sklansky/Landale need to play at the same limits and games as Rounder? How much more swings should they expect than Rounder? Are the increase in standard deviation proportionate to the increase in expectation?
How much more bankroll and fluctuation? Very much more. That's about the best I can do at this point. Mason would be amongst those who might be able to give you more specific figures.
I think the increases in fluctuation would be greater proportionately than the increases in expectation in the short-term. In the long-term a higher win rate would help smooth things out.
Rounder is the most intelligent poster on this forum. Drawing hands are for the purists. They will cost you nothing but money. You must play them cautiously and with good position only. You also need a HUGE overlay overwise forget about it. Anybody that disagrees is nuts. After listening to Rounder talk about drawing hands over and over I have changed my philosophy.
Rounder is God
"Rounder is the most intelligent poster on this forum."
Is this up for discussion or are you the highest authority on intelligent posters? Please list your qualifications for making these evaluations.
Vince
Give her some leeway I think she is on the right track.
:-)
If you play the way Rounder preaches you will always be an underachiever in poker.
Bruce
He says what he thinks and wears cool shades
Go ahead fold you opended straight flush draw, and give me a call with that made pair of deuces.
Rounder,
What is wrong with you? Drawing hands are the nuts! The nuts I say. Nothing and I mean nothing pisses off opponents more than losing to a drawing hand. O.K. maybe 7,2o but drawing hands rank right up there as "loosening them up hands". Even if you are drawing to the nut flush they don't care. You had 8 or nine outs and you beat my Aces. You gotta play poker if you wanna win money (and have fun). You gotta play when the opportunity arrives otherwise you become Rock of ages Rounder. The game is about getting the best of it! If you find yourself in a situation that has great implied odds and you don't go for it you are just plain wrong! Sure you are safe but you ain't playin the game. Get in there and mix it up! Listen to Uncle Vinnie. Limit poker ain't No Limit Poker!
Vince
Right on Vince ! Drawing hands properly played are worth $$$$$ in any limit game. While I agree that NL/PL is different, in limit games the theory of sucking out not only works, but is a significant loss to those who don't practice it.
Groan..not this again.
Dan Hanson and Badger went hoarse trying to convince Rounder...so hoarse that they no longer post here (sigh).
nt
...
This whole discussion is too vague for my tastes. Do I agree or disagree with Rounder? I don't know! I do know that I hate to open with drawing hands, like T9s or 55 when not close to the button. When I do open with T9s or 55 close to the button, it's with a raise, and it's not with the intention of drawing.
I'll play a lot of drawing hands after two players have limped, though, and I don't particularly care much about position there, unless I would really hate to call a raise back preflop. Position isn't worth much if you're usually going to fold anyway on the flop. Suited aces, medium suited kings, small pairs, suited connectors... these are all fair game after two or more limpers.
Still, I avoid offsuit connectors like the plague. The reason suited connectors are so much stronger is that you can flop a flush draw and back into a straight or vice versa, so it's almost like doubling the power of the hand. With many players in, you can't be too happy about flopping top pair with just JT, as there is a fair chance you're dominated or will wind up laying down the best hand because you were afraid you were dominated when you weren't.
-Abdul
But Abdul haven't you heard that good players prefer their connectors UNSUITED as opposed to SUITED? Both Tom McEvoy and T.J.Cloutier do or at least that is what they state in their latest book, "Championship Hold-Em". Why there are a bunch of posters over on rgp who actually defended Tom and T.J.'s position on this. They all agree that when your connectors are suited especially with a large field it is too easy for your flush to lose to a higher flush. I hope you will see the light soon and start playing your connectors UNSUITED.(I am joking of course)
Last nite was a perfect example. Table selection is very important too. I get called for my game and see it's a dud so ask for table change. Get it before I even get a card dealt. Here goes:
I'm in seat 1. Seat 2 is an agressive calling station. He will even open raise with 56s in early position. Not out of setting up table or with anything in particular in mind either. Seat 3 is loose, but he'll muck if you make him think you hit. If he goes tilt you have a helluva game, he'll raise anything and play 70% of his hands or more. Seat 4 is his buddy and they are starting to "protect" each others hands raise-reraise, but he's a more solid player. seat 5 is a calling station to the river and overvalues his hands. Plays 60-80%. seat 6 is fairly solid but too passive and plays too many hands, wierd starting requirements all over the board and passive. seat 7 is the most solid (besides me!!! :0) plays about 30-35%. Seat 8 is the next calling station. Seat nine is even worse!
ok perfect example:
I'm in BB with Q9c, a hand I wont play early, and will only limp for 1 bet late. seat 2 opened, S3 calls S4 raised, there are 6 players to me. Ok cuz I'm getting huge odds I call for 1 more bet. S3 raises, as does S4, all call still, so I do too then S4 caps it @ 5 bets. Rmember S3 & S4 are playing "protection" with each other. I know this and seat 3 is on tilt so may be raiseing garbage as I suspect.
Flop: J66 one club. 105 small bets in pot.
gets checked to seat 4 who bets. All call so for 110 Small bets to 1 I'll look for a back door flush draw.
110 small bets. Turn: 3c
I check S2 checks, S3 bets, 4 mucks, 5 raises, all muck to me. I ask for time while S4 is talking crap and I'm wondering if he's trying to set me up with pocket jacks. Well I'm getting 29 1/2:1 to call and it looks like S2 is calling, hope 4 doesnt reraise. Yep just called.
63 Big bets in pot. river: 8c
I however have not even looked at the flop as I am intently studying S4 and realize a club has hit the board by his reaction and I check just in case. Seat 5 bets, we all call.
Seat 5 had 67o Seat 3 had 62s and was the preflop reraiser. Seat 2 opened with 57c.
I then turn over my Q high flush and yell "send it!" and take a huge pot with 67 Big bets in it.
Now, lookin back I know I would have mucked if seat 4 had raised it again on the turn. Especially since seat 5 would have repopped it as is his style. I also would have mucked if they started raiseing war on flop instead of slow playing.
This put seat 4 on major tilt and I proceeded to punish him. It was my nite for sure. I played less then 15% of my hands. Got paid off on almost every single winner I played. I even had quad aces and quad 10s (pocket pairs) and bet out from the gate and got paid off! I eventually left with 7+ racks. Winning 2 racks on that 1 hand.
Rounder, what specifically are your minimums. What are the minimum drawing hands that you would play pre-flop - and from what positions? On the flop, what are the minimum situations that will make you go with a draw.
What in the hell is wrong with all of you posters on this forum. Can't you see that Rounder is tgiht about drawing hands. Avoid them like the plague! That's right avoid them like the plague. I know. I know I just posted that rounder is wrong! Drawing hands are the nuts. You gotta play them when it's to your advantage. Yes you do. Rounder doesn't say anything different he just doesn't play them. Rounder if you read his postsplays poker and my guess is that he plays very good poker. The key here is PLAYS! I've been preachin to you guys for 100 years just abpout now that poker is a game. It's a puzzlement. It is not 2 + 2 = winning poker. It is how you play your hands and 2 + 2. Rounder has found a way to win that works for him. Be thankful that he shares it with us I am. Didn't you guys read Abdul's respones. He started with I don't know. I don't know! Come on feel it! Get in the game. Play poker to win! PLAY poker. If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then limit your action in that area just like Rounder. Make up for it some other way. Get strong somewhere else. PLAY poker don't do Algebra. Leave that for Sklansky.
vince
4
I know, Vince, so I will try to write it for you.
I have a lot of goddam nerve right now saying Classic Vince after my post a few days ago that was in the vein of a Badger or if not a Badger at least a weasel. Who am I to think I can just say Classic Vince and we will be pals again as if I never took a cheap shot like that. A Badger! A Weasel! And who knows what maybe what else.
Let me tell you something M. (here I am running out of ideas for the moment and stalling out. The real Vince however would never run out of ideas). I would never take a cheap shot at you like that and I will tell you if you are wrong just like I will tell Oz and anyone else. You better be glad I am here on this forum because if you noticed no one else even responded to your arguments about Stud vs. Hold'em. We haven't played poker together yet M but someday we will and you may just be in for the surprise of your life. "M" for Vince for President
#
.
.
What is that mean the term " Drawing hand " .... When I am on a draw , I have 4 of the same color or an open-ended straight .....
If Rounder played at only one cardroom all the time, he would become very predictable. It's a good thing he travels a lot.
Not at all - I am a lot of things but predictable is not one of them.
> Drawing hands are the nuts. You > gotta play them when it's to your advantage. Yes you > do. Rounder doesn't say anything different he just >doesn't play them.
Huh? So they are not to HIS advantage? And this has something to do with his knowing how to "play poker"? So who should play them then, people who DON'T know how to play poker? Would it be to THEIR advantage?
>If you can't stand the variance >with drawing hands then limit your action in that area >just like Rounder.
If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then you should limit your poker playing period as this would imply that you really don't have the stomach for the game. The variance for most drawing hands will over time become of no consequence to someone who plays regularly. What you give away by not playing them, however, will grow without bound. Yes it depends on the pot odds, but almost always many callers justifies a call or late position raise while 1-3 tight players justifies a bet due to the added possibility that everyone will fold.
>PLAY poker don't do Algebra.
Do algebra then play poker. No it's not all about math, but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either.
Many things in poker are too complex to completely analyze mathematically, and that's where judgement ("playing poker") comes in, but that is no excuse to ignore basic mathematical facts that we can and do know.
Math and poker experience complement each other. Math can't tell you how to play every hand, but it can tell you what conditions need to hold for a certain play to be correct. It is then up to your experience and judgement to determine whether these conditions do in fact hold on any given hand with given opponents. Conversely, poker experience should be used to determine what the real issues are that should be analyzed mathematically.
Some people dislike thinking about the mathematical aspects of the game or find them too difficult to comprehend and apply, but they want to play poker so they convince themselves and each other that these aspects are unimportant due to their wealth of experience and superior judgment. Well they're kidding themselves, and this flaw represents a leak in their game whether they want to face it or not.
"It is how you play your hands and 2 + 2"
This sentence from my post was meant, in my feeble way, to indicate that one needed math "plus" to win at poker. The "play" of one's hand is what is normally missed when discussing hand analysis. Most of the discussion flows around the EV of the hand. When discussing EV the main thrust of the arguement is focused on quantifieng the value of the hand. In other words the prime consideration becomes a mathematical exercise.
I understand the value of math to a poker player. It is a necessary tool. I do not believe you give enough credit to the other aspects of the game needed to be mastered to be a winning poker player. Poker is a mind game. If you are not psycologically ready to play you can have the mathematical ability of a Fermat and not win at poker.
"but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either."
This is a very misleading statement. In fact playing correctly does not always mean taking pot size into consideration if that's what you are implying. In some instances it is correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to expectation. For instance a semi-bluff is sometimes correct even if your bet or raise is not getting correct pot odds. If your opponent exhibits certain characteristics then making this play is necessary. Other times you may make this play to send a message or to set him up for later. I suppose you could claim math is involved in these types of plays but there is no way to calculate the effect or even consider thier EV. But these plays are necessary at the right time.
One other thing:
"If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then you should limit your poker playing period as this would imply that you really don't have the stomach for the game."
Another misleading statement. Previously I mentioned that poker is a mind game. There are "rocks" that play only the very best starting hands and they "win". Your stomach has nothing to do with it. It's not a matter of nerves it's a matter of how you view the game. Playing a lot of drawing hands even in what appears to be a +EV situation is not necessary to win at poker. Finding enough situations with regards to your basic strategy is the key.
Vince.
P.S I did like your post. thanks.
"but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either."
"This is a very misleading statement. In fact playing correctly does not always mean taking pot size into consideration if that's what you are implying. In some instances it is correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to expectation. For instance a semi-bluff is sometimes correct even if your bet or raise is not getting correct pot odds. If your opponent exhibits certain characteristics then making this play is necessary. Other times you may make this play to send a message or to set him up for later. I suppose you could claim math is involved in these types of plays but there is no way to calculate the effect or even consider thier EV. But these plays are necessary at the right time.
"but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either."
This is a very misleading statement. In fact playing correctly does not always mean taking pot size into consideration if that's what you are implying. In some instances it is correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to expectation. For instance a semi-bluff is sometimes correct even if your bet or raise is not getting correct pot odds. If your opponent exhibits certain characteristics then making this play is necessary. Other times you may make this play to send a message or to set him up for later. I suppose you could claim math is involved in these types of plays but there is no way to calculate the effect or even consider thier EV. But these plays are necessary at the right time.
I'm not implying that you only take into account pot size. I'm talking about plays that are clearly wrong for purely mathematical reasons either because those reasons alone clearly dominate all other possible considerations, or because you found a way to consider EVERYTHING mathematically. It is never correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to the true expectation. I agree that it is not always possible to precisely compute the expectation of your plays because of stategy considerations that go beyond the pot odds. But I disagree that you cannot CONSIDER the EV of these plays, and in fact I believe that you ARE considering their EV every time you decide that these plays justify violating the pot odds. You might not know precisely what the EV is, but you are using your judgment to estimate that it is "big enough". When you semi-bluff without enough pot odds you are asserting that the odds of everyone folding PLUS the pot odds justify your bet. The math doesn't tell you what the odds of everyone folding is - that's where playing poker comes in - but it does tell you what these odds MUST BE for this to be correct. When you try to set an opponent up you have to ask yourself what do you expect to gain? Are you going to gain a bet? A pot? Does this make it worth the EV hit you're taking now? Sometimes the answer is so obvious that you don't need to do alot of calculation to know what is right. Maybe I have to and you don't in many cases because of your greater experience. But in many other cases the decision is close even for you, and you would be aided by at least considering what the aggregate contribution to EV for these other plays HAS TO BE for them to be correct. Then when you look at it in that light sometimes you might be surprised to find that what you thought was close really isn't, or what you thought was right actually require conditions that you are now are not at all sure are true.
The other day I analyzed under what conditions it is right to call or raise with K-high on the river. This required me to solve a diophantine equation! The answer was in terms of the size of the pot and the percentage of hands that my opponent would bet with that I could beat and the percentage of hands that he would fold that would beat me. The math didn't tell me a damn thing about what these numbers are - they are INPUTS derived from your JUDGEMENT. But the math told me what the hell to do with these inputs once I estimated them and the answer was not obvious. Maybe you always make the correct decision in this situation by the seat of your pants and maybe not. But I'll bet that not everyone does, and if you play this one right I'll bet there are some others that you don't.
"If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then you should limit your poker playing period as this would imply that you really don't have the stomach for the game."
Another misleading statement. Previously I mentioned that poker is a mind game. There are "rocks" that play only the very best starting hands and they "win". Your stomach has nothing to do with it. It's not a matter of nerves it's a matter of how you view the game. Playing a lot of drawing hands even in what appears to be a +EV situation is not necessary to win at poker. Finding enough situations with regards to your basic strategy is the key.
Perhaps it is possible to make money without ever betting a draw, but why would you want to? Usually a gambler tries to capitalize on every positive EV situation he can. I don't see how not playing obviously correct draws has to interfere with other aspects of your basic strategy. I do believe that people who advocate not playing them do so because they see these plays losing alot, maybe more than mathematics would dicatate in the short term, and they either lose their nerve or do not have sufficient grasp of the mathematics of the situation to have faith that all will eventually even out in their favor. Yes there are things that can go wrong. You can get raised or you can make your draw and lose to a bigger draw. I believe that math can help you compensate for these effects as well right down to taking into account what kinds of hands a person tends to play. You don't do this at the table. You do it offline and develop rules of thumb that you can apply instantly. That's what I'm working on now. But if you say you're never gonna bet a draw because you don't know how to take these effects into account mathematically or because you don't know how to distiguish dangerous situations from one's in which you are a clear favorite then you are giving up too much.
It looks to me like we agree more than disagree! Next subject, please.
vince.
Is it fair to assume that shorter session lengths, can produce a less reliable hourly standard devaition figure? For instance, would 60 4 hour sessions produce a different (lower?) standard deviation than say, 30 8 hour sessions? If so, what would be the ideal session lengths to arrive at a more accurate standard deviation? Thanks.
Kevin
Short Answer: NO
Longer Answer: To compute a true hourly standard deviation you need to measure your performance each hour. Therefore, the number of consecutive hours that you play doesn’t matter. Lets assume that you played 1000 hours of HE. If you played it as one long session or 1000 one-hour sessions your hourly SD has to be the same. To see that this is true redefine the one 1000-hour sessions into 1000 one-hour session where each one starts immediately after the other one ends. Since the same data generates the two results they have to be the same.
However, if you are using an average of your performance over a session to compute the SD what you are actually computing is you average hourly SD given that you play a session. If you keep your sessions close to the same length and use it to compare your performance over time it shouldn’t matter. But you are not computing your “true” hourly standard deviation. This is why you are thinking that a shorter session length will produce a higher hourly SD. What you are actually observing is that your average hourly SD given a session length will decrease as the session length increases. This should happen if you play consistently. The only way session length can affect your standard deviation is if it affects your play (fatigue).
A simple way to demonstrate in Excel how the different session lengths are affecting your standard deviation computations is to do the following:
1. In cell B1 type the following:
=NORMSINV(RAND()) This will give you simulated winnings for one period(hour) assuming a mean of zero and a SD of 1.
Copy this cell down for 500 rows.
Now compute the SD for this person.
=STDEVP(B1:B500) This should be close to 1
2. Now make another player who uses his average winning after 10 periods to compute his SD
In Cell C10 type
=AVERAGE(B1:B10) Copy and past this formula into C20, C30, Etc.
Now compute the SD for this person.
=STDEVP(C1:C500) This should be close to 0.3
3. Now who is the better player?
Player 1 Mean=0 SD=1
Player 2 Mean=0 SD=0.3
You might conclude that P2 is the better player because they have the same mean and P2 has a lower SD. However, the way the demonstration was constructed they are the same person. You can add an addition player if you want who measures his winning every 20 periods. The SD drops to about 0.2. However, the correct SD for all of the players in this example is 1.
The only true metric for determining how well someone plays is their hourly expectation not their hourly standard deviation. If two players have the same theoretical hourly earn then they are equivalent. The fact that one may have a higher or lower standard deviation could be a function of the game they are in, the particular line up they face, and how much pre-flop raising is going on. Even if they were in the same game with the same players the guy with the higher standard deviation is not necessarily a better or worse player than the guy with the lower standard deviation IF they both have the same theoretical hourly earn.
To measure performance you must look at both return AND risk. If you are using a historical average hourly to predict future returns you are only looking a returns. You can evaluate poker players the same way any risky asset is valued (stocks, bonds, etc.). What stock would you rather own? Stock A has an expected return of 10% and a SD of 5% or Stock B, which has an ER of 10% and a SD of 25%. Almost everyone (all risk adverse) would say stock A. The term in economics/finance for this is stochastic dominance. Poker is not any different. Your BR is your investment. If you ignore risk you will eventually go broke and won’t know why.
Jim,
Refer to my prevous post "Game Selection Analogy". It applies here.
vince.
In my spreadsheet, if you input 1000 hours as one long session, you'd get an SD of zero. This makes sense to me because there is nothing to deviate from. If you were to input this same 1000 hours as 1000 one hour sessions, you'd get a number above zero. This also makes sense since you can expect the sessions to deviate from one another. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm a little challenged in this area.
Kevin
Clearly session length does matter. We're "machines" (of a sort -- and pretty damn imperfect ones at that) and the longer we function, the more worn out and less reliable we operate. The ideal session length is 4 hours.
Failing to take into account session length reminds me of the old handicapping technique where speed handicappers would weigh each 1/5 second equally regardless of the distance. Yet clearly, in a longer race, 1/5 second has a different value than it would in a sprint race (if you can't accept this, consider the hyper example of how much distance 1/5 second equates to at 240 mph in an Indycar compared to 1/5 second in a 180 mph stock car).
But maybe I'm digressing. Maybe not. The point I'm making (in this torturous manner) is that the longer session length dilutes/obscures the true picture. Of course, if you're going to play 12-hour sessions EVERY day, well, please don't let me discourage you from tracking 12-hour sessions.
Good question KevinJ. A few years ago I was playing $6-$12 hold-em at the Mirage and I played every day for 8 hours. I recorded my results every 4 hours. I had the results for 10 eight hour sessions and results for the 20 four hour sessions. I found that my standard deviation was higher when I computed it for the 20 four hour sessions. However, part of this may have been due to N=20 rather than N=10. I think you need to have N=30 before you start to get consistent results. I suspect that as N gets larger, the individual session length becomes less relevant. I found that my standard deviation converges rather rapidly after about 300-400 hours.
If you use the methods in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics you can have variable session lengths.
The most accurate way to measure your hourly standard deviation is to keep track of your stack size each hour. It is my understanding that keeping track only at the end of your variable length sessions is plenty accurate enough.
- Louie
after all is said and done what is the best length of time to play, for the average player?
Before you get distracted by fatigue, irritation, off-table committments, losses, game-gone-bad, or whatever. Keep in mind that a typical work day is 8 hours (give or take) for a reason.
- Louie
Background: I play low limit $3-6 OM/8 with the Kill at the Hawaiian Gardens Casino in Hawaiian Gardens California. A scooped pot with $50 or more constitutes a "Kill." There is one $3 blind and new players "to the game" can let the dealer button pass and play without posting a $3 bet. Most players "like this rule" and usually let the button pass before playing. Also....
Myself after I start playing -- I seldom ever miss a blind. I come to play, but I have a problem with some players who consistantly pass their blind when the pot is killed. THe reason....
The reason for this is simple economics "elementary Watson" and any OM/8 player with half a brain can understand why....
In "Omaha 8 HiLo killed pots" the blind must put in an additional $3 to play -- "assuming the pot is not raised and the blind is not the killer." This is a handicap to the blind for two reasons: (1) the blind being first to act has poor overall position. (2) if the blind has a poor starting hand it is not worth the additional $3 to play " a poor investment."
Of course if all the players are fair and play their blind in turn, then the situation will average out and all is OK. But.... Certain players -- "cheap skates or whatever" will pass the blind and opt to come in a hand later or so when the pot is not killed by posting a $3 blind and a MAKEUP $3 dead drop "with the drop being part of the pot." I played OM/8 for years at other casinos and seldom experienced if ever "these cheap skate players." What is the remedy for this situation? I would like to hear some suggestions. My solution would be....
I would prefer that there is no $3 blind and each player ante 50 cents; and if a player doesn't ante -- then deal him/her out. If this is done then there would not be any reason for players skipping blinds. I sorta feel that the casino would reject this solution because antes might make the game "OM/8" more labor intensive and slow it down more.
Last paragraph should have been:
If this is done then there would not be any reason for players not playing since there is no blind. I sorta feel that the casino would reject this solution because antes might make the game "OM/8" more labor intensive and slow it down more.
i would only ante on the button.
brad
That's a drastic structure change that will never happen. A casino wouldn't even consider something like that- it would be too weird.
Carl,
I think your idea has some merit but the numbers don't work out in Los Angeles.
Let's say they do this in 3/6 holdem (to simplify things by eliminating the kill). Since by Los Angeles law the drop must be taken before the hand starts there would often be only 50 cents in the pot to stimulate action ($3 drop on seven handed). And since the blinds are not part way in the action would be even worse.
That being said, I think with the right tinkering (maybe one blind with an "ante") may be worth discussing. But not tonight ;-).
Regards,
Rick
When the Bike went to ante games in the 80's I left town. It slowed the game down by 3-5 hands per hr . Every hand became a production making change, getting players to ante and making the drop.
Dear Ed I:
You are correct -- I probably played in your games many times, but it did not increase the cost per hand. It cost you money "assuming you are a winning player", and were forced to play less hands per day. It also cost the Bike "and the Commerse casino" money on a time basis -- fewer drops "so-called collections" per hour.
When certain players habitually "two or three times per session" won't play their blind in turn because the pot is "killed", it becomes a lose-lose situation for all of the other players in the game. There are many reasons for this and I will not go into them. The best answer would be for the casino to warn "even bar" these players who won't play their blind in turn for killed pots. But it won't happen because the casino wants all the players it can get....
But.... Certain players -- "cheap skates or whatever" will pass the blind and opt to come in a hand later or so when the pot is not killed by posting a $3 blind and a MAKEUP $3 dead drop "with the drop being part of the pot."
Is this right? I must be reading this wrong. Why would a cheapskate put up $3 of dead money when he could pay the same $6 and have it all live?
Wait - what's the expected value of this blind in a typical O/8 game? If the EV is less than -1SB, then it's right to pay the dead money.
Fat-Charlie
What does the adjective "FAT" stand for. Probably short for Fat-Cat. Hi Charlie. Just kidding. Fat probably means a big wallet -- I'll bet you got a big bankroll from playing poker. I'm sure 99.9% of the poker players who contribute to this forum understand the economics "in question." But what happens "sometimes for killed pots" is that when the "should-be-blind" informs the dealer to deal me out is this: A domino-effect starts and the next players also say deal me out. The game comes to a sudden halt and the floorman has to come to the rescue. He usually gets the action going again by declaring it a new game and having the players draw cards for the button. I don't like to see this happen....
Regards Carl
"What is the remedy for this situation? I would like to hear some suggestions. "
Play a Commerce where no one gives a damn about posting for a kill pot. It's got to be a better game.
-Fred- 12 stepping my way to Omaha freedom.
Since this is a general theory forum and my thoghts regard game selection walla I'm here. I have in the past scolded numerous other posters for drawing analogies between poker and other games like chess and tennis. Poker is poker is poker. I'm sure those that primarily play those other games feel the same way about their games. This is not a comparison between poker and chess. This post is about game selection.
I very rarey practice game selection. That's not quite right. You see, I never have. Might someday though, say when I get Zee's age. I walk into a casino and put my nAME ON THE LIST AND TAKE THE SEAT AT THE TABLE i'M GIVEN. i DON'T HAVE TIME TO SCREW AROUND AND WAIT FOR A APRTICULAR GAME JUST BECAUSE (must have hit caps lock), like I was saying just because Mason or some other loose goose is in the game. Yes MAson, he plays Q,9 doesn't he. Show me what group that hand' in. Anyway Mason' easy I like playing with Mason he's so loose, weak tight maniacal that it ain't funny.
When I'm at Beallagio's I put my name on the transfer list because I see all the pro's do that. But when the opportunity arise I never change tables. I too freakin lazy to take all my chips and move them to another table just to play against some "raise it guy" like Jim Brier. So, I stay put. (That's a period at the end of that sentence.)
I also play chess. I used to lose to the computer share ware software on the lowest level every time I would play against it. But I got smart and joined the Yahoo chess games. They have a rating system from 1000 through 3000+. I have played a total of 2844 games. I have won 1273 and lost 1474 with 97 draws. I stink. I have a rating of 1464. The highest I have ever had was 1604 (briefly, 1 game). I bounce between 1350 and 1500.
When I play someone rated 1600-1700 I win maybe 10% of my games. (>1700 forgettaboutit) Between 1500-1600 I win maby 25% of those games. 1400-1500 maybe 50%. Less than 1400 maybe 80% of those games I win.
2844 games are a lot of games. And game selection well it speaks for itself.
Vince.
You may ask why I don't get any better. Habit I guess.
Vince,
Late last night I played 15-30 Stud at FW. I believe I was the best player at the table (don't we all) but the game was terrible. A tight oppressive atmosphere seemed to hang over the table. The pots were generally heads-up but the antes were hard to steal. You could cut the atmosphere with a knife it hung so heavily.
After getting stuck about 200 I went to the 10-20 Hold'em. There was one live one who had for whatever reason decided to play tough and he did just that. Here too the clouds hung low over the table. I got stuck another 250 and the game broke up. So I went back to the Stud side but the 15-30 had broken and only a full 10-20 and 40-80 remained. I went home feeling tired and kicking myself for not employing better game selection.
Not long ago I decided to be a real Scout, yes, of poker games regardless of the limit (as long as not too high). I promptly forgot this and paid a price.
The times I have advanced the most over a few months are the times when I have followed game selection principles almost religiously. Usually this has been when forced to do this by a very short bankroll. It works, however.
There are hidden costs to sitting in a bad game. Chief amongst these costs is the fact that there may be a good game elsewhere which you are missing. Perhaps second is the fact that even if you are the best player in a bad game your expected win is not very much after adjusting for the rake or time, but your risk is still significant. Perhaps third, or even second (!) is the fact that if you lose in a bad game a few times you may have crippled your ability to take shots in a higher game in which you normally wouldn't play. Here we are talking about say a juicy 40-80 Stud (with 5$ ante)or a 20-40 Hold'em for a regular 15-30 player. Loss of opportunity has a very real if intangible cost.
So may the Poker Gods give me the strength to remember this not just when I am away from the tables, but even when I am in the Poker room where I have more of an ego and where inertia often sets in.
How much better off would I have been to find a nice soft 1-5 game to beat up on. You tell me. Or to have taken a ride over to the Mohegan Sun where there might have been a cherry game.
Poker Gods please give me Strength. Please give me Strength to really Scout for Soft Games. Please give me Strength and Courage to take occasional shots over my head in juicy games. Please keep my fluctuations low and my winnings consistent in the soft games I select--I know this is not too much to Ask because we are talking about a much greater applied edge in these games. Please give me Discipline to avoid the Evil Inertia which glues my butt to the chair in mediocre games. Please endow me with the Patience to drive back and forth between casinos if necessary to find the schools of fish, and let my nets not come back empty too often. Help me to Remember these Precepts because they are the Way to Winning Poker even more than is the Way of Expert Play.
Well put. My biggest problem when I step down in limit is staying focused and concentrating. I become easily bored, get distracted, and of course I play way too many hands because it is a smaller game. In general I have a tough time getting motivated to play in a smaller game. I also wrongly think because it is a smaller game the competition is weak and I therefore can play marginal hands in poor position, etc.
Bruce
Thanks Bruce. I don't often play lower than my usual limits so I don't have often have the problems you are describing--my bigger problem is not being willing to play lower in the first place when game selection would clearly indicate that I should. Often I don't even really look at the lower limit tables and this is surely a great failing. I think my really bad runs over the years could largely have been averted had I instead made wide-range-limit-game-selection a regular practice.
Of course I will likely face the same problems which you describe but I will try very hard not to succumb too much.
It will be interesting to see the results over a few months' time (if indeed I can discipline myself enough to adopt this approach consistently for that length of time). If I manage to accomplish this I will post a report. It will be interesting to be bouncing aroud the limits a lot and may, once one gets used to it, serve to keep oneself sharp as the character and strategies for the games will be changing more than usual.
Another problem I face is travelling time. The closest casino is about a 40 minute drive. I find it very difficult to leave without playing if the game looks poor. I always call ahead to get some indication of the available games and the lineup but often times things will change.
Bruce
I would like to add that just recently I played in my first $10-$20 game. After playing in such a game I found $5-$10 to be slow. I sitll won, my my friend sitting next to me pointed out that I was playing too many marginal hands in early position (i.e. pocket sixes with a dead queen). He said sometimes playing with better players makes you play better. I believe that one must overcome this and play correctly in any stakes game.
You don't need Strength in order to give yourself the WillPower to get your butt unglued from your chair when the game you're currently in sucks and your sorry little insignificant mind is telling you that there's a much more profitable game elsewhere in the cardroom (or in another cardroom)!!! What you need is a nail from your local hardware store. That's right. A nice, big, and shiny 14 inch nail from Home Depot!!! M, the next time you feel "Evil Inertia" starting to glue your sorry little butt into that shitty little chair, vividly visualize that 14 inch nail finding it's way from your chair and up your ass - telling you, "Your ASS is mine, you loser! Your ass IS mine you undisciplined prick! Your ass is MINE you miserable vomitous mass of emotional wimpiness!" Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
These Words of Wisdom brought to you courstesy of the Voice of Experience (Poker Veteran).
"Hope this helps"
I doubt that it will help his ass.
Vince
Thanks Vince.
What is wrong with Poker Veteran?
Just wondering.
The shortest way to the mind is thru the ass.
Hey PV, when mommy said use your brain she was referring to that thing right above your nose. Consequently, she meant your ears were the shortest way to your mind. That thing near your ass is not your mind...of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Sorry.
Vince.
Say I'm in a mediocre 20-40 holdem game. I'm the best player at the table, but everyone plays reasonably well. They're all the usual suspects, and nobody looks like they're getting up anytime soon.
There isn't another 20-40 table, I can't afford 30-60, and there's no 15-30. There's a 10-20 game going. Along with a couple of decent players, it features a tourist who moved down after losing a fortune playing any two suited cards at 20-40 the previous night, and the guy who's "run so bad" for the past five years that he'll fold to a bet anytime a scare card falls.
In order to move to the 10-20 game, I'd have to believe that I can win twice as many bets as at the 20-40. How often will this be the case? What if the bluff-target calls it a night, and there's only the one tourist to pick on? And what if it meant going all the way down to 6-12?
When you talk about playing at a wide range of limits, do you mean 5-10 up to 20-40? 10-20 to 30-60? How far below our maximum comfort level do you suggest we should consider playing?
B$
you can easily make more at half the stakes in a good game as opposed to double in a bad or average game. if you think about it each time you play after awhile you can get a good feel for how much a game is worth to you per hour without even sitting down. as you play higher stakes you may have to go play as much as 10 to one in spreads. say from 30&60 to 300&600. as the games arent available that are good enough every day. most players will only play about a 3 to one spread though. others play only the limit that their bankroll allows and some only play at the stakes that put them in danger of going broke as they need the exictement.
Thank you Ray for an answer to a question that Big $lick asked but that has also been on my mind as well for the last few days.
I usually play 10-20 thru 15-30, very occasionally a bit higher or lower. I was wondering if it might really be worth it to play way down at times when I wrote the above posts. My gut told me it was, but I was wondering to just what extent. I am glad to have some degree of confirmation from someone with your knowledge and stature. Mark
Thanks for your response, Ray
A 3-1 spread, ie 10-20 to 30-60 makes sense to me. But for me to sit in 30-60 when I'm comfortable at 300-600, the bigger game would have to offer me little or no edge. Although I guess this could come up if the 300-600 is a tough game, 100-200 is mediocre, and 30-60 is very soft.
Although, I guess I won't have to worry about that for a while... I can always find a good game without going all the way down to 2-4 :)
B$
That's easy really. perfect example even starts with original posters thread. Friday nite for example. there's a 10-20 going(highest game at the time), I look and find it's a dud. There are two 6-12 games and both have over 6000 in chips on the table. One is definately more inviting then the other. That's the one I get. I played well, made some nice hands, cashout 7+racks!....Now in the 10-20, I would have been extremely lucky to win 1/3 that much. And my risk was lower. Fluctuation in chips was a little higher but I stayed in control.
Vince when you get thru with your 2+ hour ride to FW or MS you would play with mice just to get attention and talk to someone besides your radio!! If the ride don't kill ya the players will. The problem I find is after driving down I just want to play!!
As you say Game What??
paul
Actually implementing proper game selection is even more difficult to do than playing individual hands optimally. Everyone knows the importance of it, but few people actually do it. They talk about it, but they don't do it.
gee- i didnt know vince talks to his radio.
Of course I talk to the radio. Do you think anyone else would listen? Does a bear shit in the woods everywhere except Montana where they steal pears? Does Z know how to use capital letters? Does superman rhyme with Sklansky? Is Paul Feeney a weirdo? Hey this is fun. Does Mason know how to spell syncopate? Is M short for Masculinity or does he just think so. Is Batman really a little sissy boy? Is there really such a thing as the north pole? Is the big bang something a wife hopes for on her seventieth birthday? Stop me when you've had enough. Is elmer's glue made from cows? Is Montana just pie in the sky? Does apple pie go with coffee? Or are they just friends? Is an elephant always traveling? Trunk, get it? Is John Feeney really Ray Zee's son? Oh gosh, dadat, dadat daDAT's all folks!
Vince.
I always thought read that glue was made from horses but why not cows. Why is that cow smiling? Who is Elmer?
By the way M stands for Mighty Mouse and always has.
At Foxwoods, I find myself just having to get into whatever game I can get into. They are so bad with opening new tables that you can wait hours just to get into anything you even remotely want. There will be a really juicy Omaha game, and I'll be stuck in 10-20 stud for most of the session just waiting for an Omaha seat. This is a cardroom where it pays to play all games.
About 500 hours ago, I made a conscious effort to try and lower my standard deviation. I did this mainly because 1). I have heard that a low standard deviation is the hallmark of a good player, and 2). All else being equal, it is obviously better to play with less short term risk. But I have begun to question whether all else is truly equal. Over the past 500 hours my hourly SD has been an almost ridiculously low number. My hourly rate in my normal limit game, while still acceptable, seems to be dropping as well. I realize this sample size is too small to draw any definitive conclusions. I also understand (I think) that a lower SD more aproximates the true mean. In other words, it's possible that my lower SD means that I am coming more in sync with my 'true' hourly rate. But aren't there many situations in life where greater risk means greater reward for those willing to take it, while less risk often means less reward? I can't say for sure whether this is the case in poker as it relates to standard deviation. I do suspect that my efforts to lower my SD has hurt the quality of my play.
There are 3 things I can think of which affect standard deviation:
1). Game selection
2). Number/quality of hands played in specific situations
3). Aggressiveness (are there more?)
I cannot do anything about #1 given where I live. As for #2, I feel that I already play the least number of quality hands given my skill level in all situations. I don't think I could add or substract any more hands without effecting profitability. This leaves #3- aggressiveness.
This is where I have been trying to lower my standard deviation. Much of this reduced aggression has been pre-flop:
* Reserving most of my raises for big offsuit cards and sometimes even limping with AQo, KQs, etc.
* Fighting the instinct to raise after a tight player has limped, even though my hand is still playable.
* Raising far less frequently when not first in, with drawing hands and middle pocket pairs.
Some has even been post-flop (though I try to be careful not to go overboard):
* Being somewhat less likely to 'test' someone's hand with a raise, when in doubt about my own hand.
* Being less willing to 'bet into' or raise what figures to be a better hand in order to improve my chances or get a cheaper look at 5th street.
* Checking the turn with outs in certain situations, to avoid being raised when a semi-bluff may very well have won the pot.
Now I must admit that since I've adapted this more conservative approach, I haven't had a serious loss in over 500 hours of play. On the other hand, I used to gladly accept these losses because I used to also have prolonged stretches of decent wins, which I also have not had in the past 500 hours. I guess this long babble is basically just a way to ask: Is it possible to lower your SD at the cost of cutting your edge? Or does this never matter, and that a low SD is only an indication of a more accurate hourly rate?
To give an example from blackjack; if you hit on an 11 instead of doubling down, you will reduce your standard deviation, but you will win less money.
In poker, an expert reduces his/her standard deviation by making fewer playing errors, not by making plays that reduce fluctuations at the expense of profit.
To answer your question; yes, you can lower your standard deviation beyond an optimal level.
Maybe I asked the wrong question then. It's correct to double down on an 11 in blackjack, because this play will earn more in the long run. But there are other plays that are correct for a different reason. You split 8's against a dealer's ten for example, NOT to earn more, but to lose less in the long run.
There are plays in hold'em for example where aggression is concerned, that don't seem to matter much. Such as AQs. There are situations where it is just as correct to limp with this hand from an early position than to raise with it. The same goes for hands like 98s in back after 5 limpers. But one player might say he is always going to make the play which figures to make him the most long term profit, even if he has to lose more in the short term to do it. So this player might make his decision with AQs, based soley on which figures to create more action. Not worrying about the times he will accomplish this only to lose more in the short term. The conservative player might realize he can win a big pot by raising 98s after many limpers, but might not want to suffer the larger losses before doing so.
My post-flop comments may have been misleading in my post. My real question is, can this game be played in 2 different ways both which are correct? 1). Slower but surer. 2). Faster but more? Few players seem capable of achieving both sure and more. Also, some players SEEM to win with a faster approach, but in the long run don't do as well.
If you folded every hand preflop you would have a tiny standard deviation.
Kevin
I haven't played with you much lately. But the last time i played with you it was very noticeable to me that you had become less aggressive. I think this is a mistake for your game. I think your aggressiveness helped you to win pots and get free cards which is much harder to do with less aggressiveness. I realize this comes with bigger fluctuations but it appears to me you were a bigger winner in the game. I might be wrong but i thought you were much tougher to play against the old way. Having said that, i to have not had many big wins/losses lately and have been wondering what to do about it. Having watched the best player in our game it appears to me he plays a very tight pre-flop game and then pounds on the flop and beyond. Also, he rarely plays a draw aggressively. He just keeps betting until raised and then re-evaluates. I would bet his standard dev. is also small,however he hits the game for some big wins how does he do it?IMO his style would be one to incorporate into your game since it's a winning style. Good Luck Lar
I have seen this same player go through some pretty heavy swings during the course of a session. Nothing fishlike, but at times pretty large. No doubt this is due to aggression and the fact that when he IS in a multi-way pot, his chances are always good and he can max out his wins as good as anyone I've seen.
But if you've noticed, he makes it very difficult to keep track of how he's really doing. He normaly buys in for a large amount and is constantly exchanging reds for black and back again throughout the session. This makes it difficult for anyonw to keep track of his stacks.
Kev
I agree that he also can have some big swings at times,however i don't beleive it's that difficult to know how he's doing. He always buys in for $500 and if he gets stuck buys in for another $500. Granted if you don't start the game with him it would be difficult to know exatly where he is at but in general he has 500-1000 in the game. In addition, i have played a lot of hours with this person and i can tell you that in general his swings are not that big. Again i think it is a big mistake to reduce your variance at the expense of long term profit and it sure sounds like that's what you are doing. I would rather play against the new Kevin the old one was an absolute bear to beat in a game. He pushed draws hard,did a lot of raising and three betting on the flop for value and to get free cards it was hard to know where he was at and it cost you afortune to find out. He took you off your game and you were constantly guessing where he was at,and guessers are losers in poker. Good luck Lar
I'm sure you're right. No doubt my table presense has suffered some. I appreciate your honesty and opinions.
btw- I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same 'best player'. You've played many more hours with him than I have, but I've seen him buy in for 2 racks in 10-20. I also see him buy chips from players as they leave. I don't mean this in any derogatory way, (I agree he is heads and tails the strongest player in that room) it's just that I've found that if you do not kickoff the game with him, it's likely you'd have no idea how he's doing, good or bad.
Kevin
given the same mean, all a smaller variance indicates is that you're less likely to go broke in the short term. in the long term, your variance is by definition meaningless to your bottom line.
however, unless you're world-class, you can't simply lower your variance without lowering your expectation as well. so it sounds like you are costing yourself money in the long run here. if you're playing on an extremely tight bankroll, of course, the approach you describe is reasonable. otherwise, stop gambling in the short term and get back to maximizing your expectation.
It is kind of like the stock market. If you invest in blue chip stock you get solid rate of return on your money. On the other hand if you invest in a start up internet company you could make a killing or go broke. The key is to find a level where your risk and rate of return is at a level you can live with. The same is true in poker. If you can max your return and handle the risk do it. If your bankroll is small, tighten up and get a little with a less risk.
I think your "World-Class" comment is right on the money. Mr. Malmuth is the only player I have heard of, who seems to enjoy both a very low deviation and a high hourly earn at the same time.
Reducing variance at the expense of your win rate will almost certainly cost you money overall. Many of the plays you name are disasterous for your EV - open-limping when you should open-raise, not raising to isolate limpers, limping with hands like AQo or KQs in the wrong spots, or not semibluffing later in the hand. Drop down in limit and play only to maximize your EV, ignoring variance. It's almost certain that you will make more playing (say) 10-20 optimally rather than 20-40 with a focus on reducing your variance. If the swings are a problem for you, you shouldn't be playing that high.
Thanks for your response Dan. The swings are not a problem at all. My variance has always been on the high side, and I'm told that the 'very good players' will almost always have a low variance. So in order to try and become a 'very good player', I thought it only natural to try and lower my variance. I have in no way given up on the plays I described, I'm just being more selective in using them. But both my table presence and my larger wins, seems to be going down.
Kevin
"I'm told that the 'very good players' will almost always have a low variance."
Not true at all. In fact, aggressive play will raise your variance, and in many cases that is how an expert will play. Play that will win a lot of pots without the best hand will raise your variance. The reason top players may have lower variance in some games is that they (1) read hands more carefully enabling them to make more accurate decisions on the later streets, and (2) read boards, hands, and opponents well so as to avoid traps on the flop and turn. You shouldn't be focused on your variance; what's important is your win rate. When your win rate is high, then if your variance is still high you might want to work more on your hand reading. And in some games, an expert player will have a *higher* variance than many of his lesser-playing opponents - this would be true of a game with many weak-tight players that the expert "runs over" with (semi)bluffs.
I think you make an incredibly imporptant point about hand reading. On more than one occasion, I've heard Mason Malmuth attribute this one skill as a most key factor to a low variance and maximum earnings.
It's possible that I've been going about things all wrong. Rather than making a concsious effort to lower my variance, I probably would be better off concentrating on improving various other skills such as handing reading. I can see the futility of my thinking. It's like saying, "I'm going to make an effort to make more $$$". This is too vague and doesn't really mean anything. It's better to say "here are the things I can DO to to make more $$$". You've been a big help. Thanks Dan.
Kevin
I have noticed that the quality of the Kem cards used in my club have deteriorated recently. The cards feel thinner and the face cards come fresh out of the wrapper warped - slightly curved.
It is not good when you (and your opponents)can tell from the back of the card whether or not you have a face card!!!
I have talked to the house about this and they tell me that they are considering changing card suppliers because Kem has not corrected the problem.
Has anyone else noticed this around the country?
What would change in the printing process to warp the face cards?
Could someone explain how the cards are actually printed?
All comments appreciated.....
There have been several posts on this. The Bellagio in Las Vegas still has a problem with warped Kem cards. It tends to happen to face cards and the Ace of Spades. On one of the threads someone mentioned that it has to do with the fact that the face cards are heavier and the Ace of Spades is always packed on the bottom of the deck. When the cards are shipped in trucks and they are not properly air-conditioned sometimes due to temperature and humidity, the face cards will warp, twist, and bend when they are unpacked.
I believe that card rooms should switch to the A+ brand which is what was used by the Orleans in their last tournament. The A+ brand is thicker than the Kem brand and they lay flat on the table.
I still see the problem where I play, with the face cards and the A of spades. I was told it may have to do with the larger amount of ink used in those cards. The Kings are especially bad.
I did notice, however, that the cards used in the tournaments do not have this problem. They are a different color deck. Could be because they are not used nearly as much.
Jim,
I'm no expert on cards (i.e., I couldn't tell you what the one eyed jacks are), but I'll add a few thoughts as a result of recent inquiries and observations.
I've played at clubs that use the A Plus brand. In some cases they are used along with the Kems - the A Plus might be used in top section. The A Plus are thicker than the Kems and do lay flat. One problem is that they "dent" very easily despite (or perhaps because of) the fact they are thicker. For example, simply tossing a chip on a card edgewise can leave a dimple.
They are also somewhat harder to shuffle but a couple experienced dealers I've talked to indicate that it isn't a big problem after practice. I've heard they are cheaper so replacing the dented cards is not a big problem.
I also talked with a lady who works in the card washing room. She indicated that the cards are very sensitive and that cleaning solutions must be mixed exactly. The splotchy cards Abdul may have spoken of several months back may be a byproduct of improper cleaning. She also noted that improperly cleaned cards won't lay flat and the fact cards have the biggest problem (perhaps the paint absorbs moisture).
By the way, both Kem and A Plus advertise in the back of Card Player and have web sites.
Regards,
Rick
I could not find it.
Squatchmo,
Check out the following link to Frank Lee Imports which handles this line of cards:
Regards,
Rick
to those concerned about warped cards:
mention it to the table and the house. if as usual no one seems to care do what i do. remember which cards are bent and use that information for your own benefit. you may find your win rate goes up substantially in those games. if you believe this is cheating or unfair dont look. also hold your cards so that it is too hard to tell what you have and let those that stick their cards out in the middle suffer. or join the peace corps and help those that refuse to help themselves(dont tell rounder i wrote that)
Ray has made a p'litically incorrect statement in this post. Now we have to chastise him and cast him out, as per the "American Way". Please everyone join me in hastily thinking up cruel and unusual punishments for the "Evil one".
Dave in Cali (aka "the one who stands upon the box")
which is my fo paw. the statement to use it or the peace corps thing. both are very politically on the edge. my foot is size ten and mouth is eleven.
It doesn't matter exactly what your faux-paus was Ray, we just need a witch to burn! Any old excuse will do! Let's get em'!!!!
I am a beginner and I noticed dents and bends in some cards made by a Spanish card company [plastic]. They weren't Kem cards. I forgot the mfg. name. The dents were evident in quite a number of the cards of the deck and were rather non-specific i.e. there were bends in small cards as well as the big ones.
I noticed this situation on one table out of numerous tables in a southeastern poker room. The other tables in the same room did not have the same problem.
I am not one to normally ask for card changes, but I asked for a card change three hands [and no bets] after sitting down at this stud table. The second deck of the setup also had warps and bends. Although I did not observe the other players taking advantage of them (or even noticing that they existed), someone else requested a new setup just a few hands after the second deck of the bad setup. I am not sure whether he also saw the warps or not. The new setup was ok. I played extremely conservatively during the few minutes that the bad cards were in play and especially watched what the other players were doing, if I was in a hand.
Also, as someone else has posted, I protected my hand so that the other players could not see the backs of my cards well.
As a beginner, I am a bit surprised that I found such obviously dented cards so early in my "career [?!?]" as this. This was probably the 5th or 6th stud table that I have played in my life.
The problem has started up again at Turning Stone. I'm tired of complaining about it. Nobody seems to care. I've been keeping my mouth shut and covering my cards a little more quickly.
Has anyone read the "Low Rollers" column of the Sept 29 Card Player?
In this column, he describes a lowball situation where numerous errors happened in the hand due to the various parties.
But what I found particularly offensive was the fact that he choose to name "a very superstitious player, one who thought the whole world , particularly the dealers, were conspiring to extract his money from him..." Abdul.
He continues to describe this player as "the fellow who called for a deck change once a round.. also tneded to shoot angles- that is get away with whatever he could short of actually breaking the rules."
He continues to decribe the player and his behavious in the most distasteful.
The reason I find this offensive is he is taking a rather cheap shot in labeling many arab players as behaving this way. I think had he labeled this player by a typical asian, or black name he would have been in huge trouble and probably the name would have been changed before going to press. However with an arab name all is fine according to Mr. Wiesenberg.
Why not call the players Dick and Harry? Or player A and B? SHAME ON YOU MICHAEL WIESENBERG!
Why are you so certain 'Abdul' was Arab? Sure, it's an Arab name, but that does not automatically mean he is of Arab descent?
I also read that column and, after thinking about it, did NOT find it offensive in the least.
In my experience, players of Arab descent do not generally behave in this or any other certain way.
In fact, I have yet to run into a person who is easily identified as of Middle Eastern descent to behave even remotely as "Abdul" is described. There are a few people I play with regularly who are of Middle Eastern descent and they are individuals just like anyone else.
If the person he pointed out was named "Abdul", there is not much he can do about it - that is the guy's name for cryin out loud. If the guy's name is Abdul, then that's his name. The player's name might have been Dorothy, Peter, Van, or Moon Unit for all anyone cared.
I have seen players from just about every nationality behave in the manner described. No single race has the market cornered on rotten behavior.
Abdul Jalib is not an Arab.
Maybe the player's name actually was Abdul, and the woman's name actually was Kate.
I do not see that Michael Weisenberg said anything like "let's call them Kate and Abdul." In fact, he gave their first names along with some other descriptive information relevant to the incident he is relating.
You may well be jumping to conclusions.
In our current knee-jerk climate of absurdly stringent standards for political correctness, jumping to conclusions is unfortunately quite common.
He could have been taking a shot. But he very well might not have been, and you are assuming that he was.
While Michael Weisenberg could have substituted vanilla names, I don't think he should have to, especially if those were indeed the players' actual names.
If he chose to name a full table of players the following: Tyrone, Levi, Abdul, Lolita, Ming, Klaus, Standing Bear, Finnegan, Winthorp and Vincenzo I wonder how many people would be up in arms.
90% of what people attack as being politically incorrect is, upon closer inspection, not necessarily so. In my opinion the PC police are going way overboard in general in these times, and I do not think this is a good trend. The right to free speech is certainly more important than being politically correct, and it is absurd for everyone to have to exhaustively consider every potential avenue of possibly interpreted (or misinterpreted) offensiveness before they open their mouths or put pen to paper. This is what the current climate seems to want, and I submit that it has gone so far as to be frequently ridiculous.
Again, while he just might have been taking a shot, you cannot correctly assume that he was, and he did not imply that these were anything other than the players' actual names.
with all movement of migration now , it's common to see many names from many origines . I'll talk to you about the most superticious guy I ever seen in the game I play . If he hasn't won a hand with a good hole , he will stand up and watching the ceilling and he says " Allah , Allah " ....sometime , he changes of place something in the room , for exemple the other day , he take the sandwiche's plate and he turns it of 180 degrees . If a player touch the guy's cards to give it to the guy because the dealer doens't throw him exacly in the middle , he will give shit to the player and to the dealer . Ohhh yeah , I forgot , the name of the guy is Pablo ...hehe
I have to agree with the political correctness police going WAY overboard. In today's PC climate, honesty and open debate is severely hampered because of the unwillingness of the debatees to violate any political taboos. This is more than evident in the debate on the war on drugs, plus the debate on campaign finance. Everyone is so darn paranoid of violating some stupid political taboo that no one is actually discussing anything worthwile, we are all just blowing smoke up each other's @#$. Get over it. You do have the right to have an opinion which someone else finds offensive, so say what you mean and mean what you say. If you offend, too bad for the offendeee.
Just had to get on my soap box for a while!!!
dave in cali
I read this column and was not at all offended by it. Of course, I'm not Middle Eastern, but I mean if I was, I wouldn't be offended.
btw- Is there some general theory that I'm missing here?
= Raider =
This comment I made was not because of political correctness. Political correctness is what stands in the way of people saying what they wanted to because it might offend someone. There is no point to be made by naming the badly behaving party Abdul. He could have easily named the parties Dick and Jane.
Why didn't he? I am not an expert in the area but the words, and names we read often have effects on our perception. A great deal goes on in advertising where certain images and words are used to reinforce certain stereotypes.
I usually don't catch these things, but I think this was inappropriate.
Again, he did not necessarily seem to be "naming" any players anything--these names appeared to quite possibly be their names of record. My impression is that he was reporting the incident and providing commentary and insight.
Even if he did name these players rather than provide their actual names, why should he have to choose vanilla names? Besides, who is to say that Dick and Jane do not have connotations as well. A name is a name. Why should only English names be considered to not have connotations? If he named the player anything other than Dick or Bob I suspect we would have someone upset. So why shouldn't the English get upset if he named a stupid superstitious player William?
Maybe part of the problem is not with what most people say or write, but with how easily some people take offense or read into what someone wrote or said. I agree that blatant insults or racial epithets are uncalled for, ignorant and unkind. However, lesser words are often misconstrued.
My ancestry is English, German, Scottish and Welsh and I could care less even if someone directly called me a Limey or a Kraut or for that matter a Damn Yankee since our family has been over here since the founding of this country. In fact I hope someone does sometime soon so I can have a good laugh instead of taking offense. When I visited Alabama recently I told the poker players I was a Damn Yankee from Connecticut so we could joke about it, and at one point I even told them the Southerners were really dumb to ever think they could have won the war.
So it isn't just about taking offense---you have to be able to lighten up a bit and laugh, and realize that if someone is really prejudiced to the extent that they may be missing the much greater value of the individual, then they are really missing something.
Hey, my middle name is Dick! If he used Dick I would have been highly offended! The way that guy acted would give us Dick's a bad name...
Seriously, I agree. If he had made up fictious names and used Jane and Dick with Jane being the trouble maker couldn't you make a case that the author's use of a woman's name here implied that he was inferring all woman are finicky, fussy, short fused, etc.?
and how did those rednecks ever think they could win?
scott
I would suggest that you apply some game theory to your quandry.
Research what percentage of the North American population is White, Black, Asian, Native American, Arab, etc...
For example. (just making these numbers up and my apologies to those cultures and peoples who haven't been stirred into my hypothetical melting pot)
White Anglo saxon 40% Francophone 5% Afro-American 30% Asian 20%
Then take that percentage and multiply it by 0.6. Now whenever it is time to pick a name, look at the second hand on your watch. If the second hand is between 0 and 24 choose a White anglo name, Bill perhaps. If it is between 24 and 26 a Francophone name, Pierre. If it is between between 26 and 38 then choose a name common amongst Afro-Americans.
Oh oh problem I forgot about the fairer sex. OK I got it. After using the second hand on your watch look at the hour hand if it is even pick a female gender, odd pick male. Perfect.
Now using Game theory we can ensure that all names are proportionatly representative to our population. We can ensure that all cultures are equally represented with positive and/or negative images. The use of game theory will also prevent us from guessing any nationalities incase the said author had and guessable patterns as well.
Now may I suggest that you do what you can to stop real racism instead of finding it places where it doesn't exist and implying that an author whose reputation is important to him is a racist because he used a term you incorrectly found offensive.
!
I pride myself on having read most the poker books in print. While recently watching Rounders, "Mike" supposedly quotes a book called "Confessions of a Winning Poker Player." Where can I find this and/or does it exist? Thank you.
Bskills
Bskills,
Could you be thinking of "The Education of a Poker Player" by Yardley. It is a classic but won't help you much with your game. Check it out on Amazon if Chuck doesn't have it.
Regards,
Rick
Could he have been talking about this one?:
Dowling, Allen Nicholas. Confessions of a poker player by Jack King (pseud.). New York, I. Washburn, Inc., 1940. 209 pages
I found it here:
http://www.neo-tech.com/poker/appendixb.html
By the way,
I found that link by doing a search on the book's title. Upon further investigation, there is a ton of goofy stuff on that website. Hopefully, they got the book info right.
I had a very long debate with a friend of mine tonight (away from the table) regarding luck and poker. He said he would check this forum out to see everyone else's opinion on the subject. I know Malmuth, Caro and others have written about this, but misconceptions on this topic still abound. Let's try to keep the sqaure roots, and means, blah, blah, jargon out of it. Let's talk turkey.
I've heard many different opinions on the role that luck plays in poker. Thoughts on this subject appear to be wide ranging. Some claim that a guy can be so unlucky he would be unable to overcome his misfortunes in a life time of good play. Others, state that skill should prevail in only a few hundred hours of play. I vigorously debate the former and somewhat disagree with the latter. I think it is very possible for bad luck to keep a good player down for a few hundred hours. Maybe even 1000, and if he really lives the wrong way, 2000? But no good player with a solid edge, worth his salt, should be down over a lifetime of play! I just can't agree to that! I can't agree that the difference between skillful play and sheer luck (good or bad) is really this grey.
Assume a player's edge is very minor, say $5.00 per hour in a 100-200 game, bad luck can swing this edge to negative results over many many hours. But even with this small of an edge, a lifetime seems a bit much. A half a lifetime might seem plausible (10,000 - 20,000 hours?). If his edge were only $2.00 per hour, then a lifetime might be correct. But take a player who figures to earn $50 per hour in this 100-200 game. I would stop short only of using the word "impossible" in stating the likelihood that this player could still be down after 10,000 hours. The problem is, you CAN'T say impossible! And maybe this is the single reason for all the misconceptions. It's possible for this player to be down after 20,000 hours of play, in the same way it's possible for him to be killed by an eagle dropping a tortoise on his head (this has happened one time in recorded human history according to the Odds Almanac).
This was the impass of our argument. With me saying the chance is so remote it's not even worth considering, let alone planning for (How many of you after having learned that your life can be snuffed out by a falling toroise, will wear a helmut on your way to the poker room tomorrow?). While, he continued to claim that luck has much to do with whether you are a long term winner or loser. We were on the verge of agreeing several times until he insisted on using that word.. Long term... Short term, I'm there. Long term, I don't buy it. So, without all the fancy statistical mumbo jumbo, what's the consesus on this forum regarding long term luck in poker?
= Raider =
I remember reading a Roy West column where h suggested that while some people happen to be luckier than others,DO NOT forsake dedication,discipline,and patience in relation to your poker game.
If you are 2+2 quality, you should never even have a losing month.
CV
CV-
Now let's not get carried away with this. One month's time would represent slightly over 165 hours for a pro and much less, for the part timer. The fact that you should not figure to have a losing month, and never having one, are 2 different things. I think it's very possible for an expert to have a losing month. And if he's really born under a bad sign, possible quite a few. My guess is that once your hours hit the 4 digit mark, (for sure the 2000 hour mark), you should be able to break through any walls fate can erect. And if you are still in the negative, it's a pretty safe bet that poker is simply your cost of entertainmnet.
= Raider =
Personally, if I have more than 2 losing 8hr sessions in a row I start to think something is wrong with my game. But I look for games where I can have >1.5BB per hour win on average.
Ray Zee has said he never had a losing month in 30 years of playing, I believe.
CV
Ray Zee. Me. Ray Zee. me. Ok, I'll buy that. Ray Zee has never had a losing month. But this doesn't have much to do with me, and no offense, I'm not sure how much this has to do with you either. Ray Zee is an expert professional poker player. I'm not just blowing smoke his way either. This means he is among the very best of the best. If you took the top player from every town in the country, guys like Zee, Sklansky, Malmuth would no doubt still have a field day. I won't speak for you, but the rest of us (even the very good ones), are not quite in this league. And I STILL wouldn't be surprised to learn that one of them had a losing month somewhere along their career.
But you're taking me off my mission which is to agree with you, that a good player will overcome any amount of bad luck sooner or later. I just think you're making a bit of an extreme assertion (and comparison).
= Raider =
I just want to point out that there comes a time where it is more likely that you are playing a losing game rather than just being unlucky. If you are losing after 100 to 200 hours in Texas Hold'em you are either a losing player or your expected win is not that big compared to the bet size. In both cases you may do best by moving down to a smaller game.
CV
I'll tell you what. I don't want to be a nit, so this is the last I'll say on this. 100-200 hours is but a blink of and eye statistically speaking. Anyone who has played hold'em long enough will have had a 100 hour losing streak. If they tell you otherwise, they're lying. Ok. there is also the smallest of chances they are some sort of freak statistical deviate but it's much more likely they are fabricating their results. To say you can't get a 100-200 hour streak of poor cards, missed flops, expensive missed draws, big hands cracked, hold overs, etc. is a tad absurd. I would put the point you talked about at around 1000 hours most of the time.
= Raider =
I do believe that bad luck can eliminate even a great players edge over 1000+ hours.
I know some people completely disregard TTH simulations out of hand. But you have to know it's strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's weaknesses 'cancel out' and you can rely on its results. Here is one such example.
Take a lineup of TTH holdem personalities. Have them play 10,000,000 hands of holdem. This is more hands than even Doyle Brunson has played in his lifetime.
You will see that, in the long run, some pre programmed players are clearly better than others. Fine. Rank those players from best to worst.
Now take that lineup and have them play 5,000 hands. This is somewhat more hands than you could realistically play in 1,000 hours. You will see that it is NOT THAT UNCOMMON for even the best AI personality to be down after this small sample of hands.
You do have to concede that, even though none of the AI personalities play that great, some play better than others. Just like real life. So I think these findings are VERY significant.
I strongly believe that luck can and does play a large part of any given person's results over small periods of time. (By small I mean 1 session - 2 years.)
Now, it may also be that, while some AI personalities are stronger than others, the best is not MUCH BETTER than the weakest. This is probably true, so in that case it may be that the greatest profit the best personality might ever hope to make is only 1/3 of a BB per 30 hands. That may be. If that is the case then it will be more common to have losses over 5000 hands.
Getting to the point, GAME SELECTION is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. If you play against 8 others who are only marginally worse than you, you can't hope to win 1BBper hour and you are more likely to have a losing year.
But if you ALWAYS play with at least 2 fishy players in the game, you can hope to win at least 1BBper hour, and it will be far more likely for you to have a winning year.
-SmoothB-
A side note of interest -
If you have the computer play even high stakes, like 40-80 with a 3 dollar rake, ALL of the AI personalities are LOSERS after 10,000,000 hands.
GAME SELECTION IS KEY!!!
I really believe that, unless you ALWAYS play in games with at least a couple of players who are significantly worse than you, (and hopefully none are much better), you CANNOT win in the long run.
-SmoothB-
Hopefully you made a mistake in your calculations. Cuz, I know dealers who could get more than 5000 hands out in 1000 hours wearing boxing gloves... A slow dealer should be able to get out a minimum of 30,000 hands in this time (30 hands per hour).
But it sounds like you are on my side. Over the LONG RUN luck won't keep a good player down. Saying a good player can be down over 1000 hours, is still not long run as far as I'm concerned.
= Raider =
Of course I meant 50,000 hands.
-SmoothB-
I can only speak for limit hold-em and my response to your post refers to full tabled limit hold-em.
1. In full tabled limit hold-em most of the earn a winning player makes over the course of many thousands of hours of play comes from showing down the best hand. It does not come from bluffing, deception, stealing the blinds, etc. There are only two ways you can showdown the best hand. The first is to start with the best hand and have it hold up. The second is to start with a worse hand but drawout on the best hand (commonly referred to as "sucking out"). While it helps to start with good cards and it helps further to only play speculative hands under favorable circumstances, being able to showdown the best hand is not under the control of the player. It is a function of how well his cards fit the board and this in turn depends upon what board cards happen to show up.
2. There is a very large element of luck in hold-em. Far greater than in a game like chess or duplicate bridge. Playing as good a game as you can, studying hard, having patience, discipline, etc. will give you your best overall chance of winning but that alone does not guarantee that you will win.
3. There are several factors that can help describe the luck element in hold-em. Suckouts are a factor. When you flop an over pair or something like top pair/top kicker how often does it hold up as the best hand against one or two opponents and how often does your opponent catch a turn card or a river card to take the pot away from you? Now perhaps as you gain in skill you can maybe save a bet somewhere when this happens but it does not change the fact that when it happens you lose money. Holdovers are another factor. You have pocket Kings and your lone opponent has pocket Aces. Unless the flop comes an Ace-high you are probably going to lose money in this situation. Similarily, you have Ace-King and your opponent has AA or KK. Again you are earmarked to lose money. Payoffs are a third factor. You make the nut flush at the river and collect from one or two opponents who had top pair so you get to win a small/medium pot. Another player makes the nut flush at the river but he wins a monster pot because his two opponents each flopped sets and the betting got capped on the flop and turn. Finally, there is the simple fact of how often one person makes good hands like straights and flushes and full houses. It is called getting your fair share of good cards. Suckouts, holdovers, payoffs, and catching your fair share of good cards are not identical for every individual in the large population that plays hold-em. Statistics apply most effectively to large populations and less effectively to individuals. When you see individual results that vary, part of this variation is due to the luck factor not skill. People who insist that the luck factor is the same for everyone and that individual differences in results are due to skill are attempting to apply reason to randomness.
4. Mason Malmuth, in his book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", demonstrates how a winning low ball player who is capable of beating his $30-$60 game of $30 per hour can have a 4000 hour losing streak which is two years of full time play. If you had one million blackjack card counters play one million hands of blackjack using the same system with a 0.5% advantage and the same betting spread, some of the card counters would be losers at the end of the million hands. Some of them would go broke long before the one million hands was reached. I have a friend who has been a student of hold-em for over a year. He plays low limit hold-em against novices. He is intelligent, well read on hold-em, a lurker on this forum, does not go on tilt, plays good starting hands, has patience, discipline, etc. He has lost $4000 over the 1000 hours he has played low limit hold-em. I have another friend who was averaging $40 per hour in $20-$40 over his first 1000 hours of play. He has lost $13,000 over his last 800 hours of play. I could go on with stories like this. The problem is that we never hear from the good players who cannot win because they cannot overcome the luck factor. We only hear about the players who do and who are successful. We then erroneously assume that their success is due to their skill alone which is simply not true.
5. We all want to believe that if we apply ourselves we will get a good result. This is true in games with a very high skill factor like chess and duplicate bridge and backgammon with the doubling cube. But this is not true in full tabled limit hold-em because of the large element of luck that dominates this game.
Couldn't argue with any of the above but you will agree with me that cases of good players on the long losing streaks that you speak of are extremely rare.
I, like anyone else, have had losing streaks but I can tell you without a doubt that if I ever had a losing record (or even a break even record) after 800 hours of play at any given time, I would hang 'em up so to speak and get on the "bar talk" forum or something instead of a poker forum.
But skp, even the great Mike Caro is reputed to have said that a life long poker pro can expect to encounter a 1000 hour losing streak over his poker playing career. The more poker you play the greater the likelihood that you will encounter a long losing streak. It happens to lots of players who play full time. There are some who never have a losing streak to speak of. I know one pro who has never had a losing month. His idea of a bad month is not making enough to cover expenses. But he is an anomaly.
The key is how much you have won and how long you have played before this losing streak arrives. Someone like Cissy Bottoms who has a long history of winning over the past 20 years at mid-limit poker could face a 500 or 1000 losing streak. But when a big losing streak strikes someone who is just starting out or who has only played a few thousand hours it can put them out of poker altogether. Bankroll is another problem. If people are living off their bankroll or otherwise keep depleting it, I think it is only a matter of time before they hit a losing streak and go broke. But I think the biggest factor is the psychological damage. If you go for 500 or 1000 hours without winning, for many people the game is just not enjoyable anymore so they quit and do something else with their time.
"If you go for 500 or 1000 hours without winning, for many people the game is just not enjoyable anymore so they quit and do something else with their time."
Ya, perhaps that's the reason why we don't often see such long losing streaks...these players disappear from the scene. I can tell you that I would disappear if I went that long without winning. If you are telling me that such a long losing streak is inevitable, then I obviously will not be playing poker for ever...and that my friend is a sobering thought.
You say that now, but are you really serious? Let's say you had a 401k that's been yielding 13% per year for the last 8 years. This year, your 401k took a hit. Do you now give up on the markets and stuff your cash under the mattress, even though there's every reason to think that in the next 25 years you will have recouped every penny of this loss plus a sh**load more?
I look at poker as a long term investment. Sure if you're good, you figure to make money at every short term checkpoint. Heck, you figure to make money every hand. But when your AA get cracked you don't just say screw this! Ok, some people do, but you and I don't. Right? Those are just short term losses which we figured to win. 500 hours just takes this concept further. Please someone. AGREE with me here!
= Raider =
Well, a 800 hour losing streak hasn't happened to me yet (thank god) but ya, I am serious...if that ever came to pass, I don't think that I would (or could) continue playing. It's tough to keep up your confidence after a losing month let alone a losing stretch of 800 hours. If that were to happen, I clearly would not be able to play anywhere close to my A game and will in essence be throwing in good money after bad.
While the analogy with having Aces cracked is acceptable on the surface, there are obviously some pretty important differences.
Jim, For the most part I think you give highly valuable poker advice (although I do think you play a little tight), however, I strongly disagree with the following part of your post:
"It is called getting your fair share of good cards. Suckouts, holdovers, payoffs, and catching your fair share of good cards are not identical for every individual in the large population that plays hold-em. Statistics apply most effectively to large populations and less effectively to individuals. When you see individual results that vary, part of this variation is due to the luck factor not skill. People who insist that the luck factor is the same for everyone and that individual differences in results are due to skill are attempting to apply reason to randomness."
The "population" that statistics apply to are the hands that are played, not the individuals playing the hands. As the number of hands that an indivdual plays increases, the variation due to luck MUST DECREASE. It is definetely possible to apply reason to randomness. I strongly believe that individual differences in results, for people who have played a large number of hands, are due almost entirely to skill and game selection. I know that Raider does not want to introduce any sort of statistical mumbo jumbo but probability theory, properly applied is correct!! It may be true that good players who have long streaks of "running real bad" are the victims of "bad luck". However, I suspect that in most of these case the skilled players were in fact not playing so skillfully. How many of the players on this forum who consider themselves experts can tell me that they are always playing at the top of their game?
~heavy sigh~
Yes! This is what I was trying to say, but wasn't clever enough to form my thoughts this concisely! Thanks Boris...
Well, Boris I cannot help it but I think we need to introduce some statistical "mumbo-jumbo". Suppose you have 10,000 expert $20-$40 hold-em players who have an expectation of $40 per hour and a standard deviation of $400 per hour. Further suppose that they all play 2000 hours of $20-$40 hold-em in games where these two parameters are operating (i.e.- expectation = $40 per hour and standard deviation = $400 per hour). Now after 2000 hours do you believe all 10,000 of these guys will be ahead $80,000? I can assure you that will not be the case. Some of these guys will be ahead by almost $200,000. Some of these guys will be losing money. They will have individual results that vary by tens of thousands of dollars.
But since we are all results oriented what we see is that Player X won almost two hundred grand playing $20-$40 and we assume that he is a great player because of his spectactular results. We see Player Y stuck thousands of dollars after 2000 hours of play and assume that Player Y is a lousy player. Player X himself assumes he is a great player because he has gotten such great results over a long period of time. Player Y assumes he is a lousy player because he wasn't able to beat the game so he quits poker and does something else to fill up his time. But the objective truth of the matter is that both Player X and Player Y are equally skillful with the same expectation and standard deviation. Now we never hear from guys like Player Y but guys like Player X achieve stardom with us. So we assume that Player X is a superstar because he plays so well.
Luck exists and luck is very real. Luck is not the same for everybody. Not everyone is equally fortunate in life and poker is no different.
I didn't want to go here, but Ok. You are assuming that an expert player is 4 standard deviations away from his mean! (2000 SQ*400 = 17,889.00)*4 = 71,554.00. And you are saying this player is down 80,000.00. An additional 8,446.00!
I refer you to the part of my original post about the chances of death due to a falling turtle dropped by an over passing eagle.
= Raider =
It is possible that one or two players are stuck a great deal of money after 10,000 hours of play; it is also highly unlikely. the question of how fast your true hourly rate approaches your expected rate, as sample size increases, is a fairly complex statistical problem. one way to begin to answer the question is to determine, on average, how many hands per hour you deem worthy of at least seeing the flop. Jim, I think you would have a better idea of this than me.
In full tabled limit hold-em most of the earn a winning player makes over the course of many thousands of hours of play comes from showing down the best hand. It does not come from bluffing, deception, stealing the blinds, etc.
---SNIP---
The fact that most of the earn does not come from these things does not mean that bluffing, deception and blind stealing or (other steals for that matter) are minor factors. I would guesstimate that I could buy a brand new mid-sized car from the pots I snatch away from the weak-tighties and some not so weak-tighties, during the course of a single year playing poker. This is big time compensation when the cards aren't hitting me. A fact that many cold runners seem to forget is, at any given time there are likely many others players not hitting with you. Hand reading, developing table image, setting up plays well in advance against good players, are all things that have very little to do with luck. These skills are less important in limit than pot or no limit, I know. But in any given session there is usually at least one hand where I could win a pot holding the 2 cards which have the rules printed on them. When I am able to do this, there is little to no luck involved.
Jim's comment:
Playing as good a game as you can, studying hard, having patience, discipline, etc. will give you your best overall chance of winning but that alone does not guarantee that you will win.
---Another SNIP---
It doesn't guarantee a win for what length of time? A session? I agree. 1/2 year? I'm wincing, but I still agree. over 1 full year of full time play for an expert? No. I just can't. I think we underestimate just how good an expert player is. I'm NOT saying I'm an expert. That was the setting for this argument. I player with a very good edge not winning in the long term.
Mason's example of the lowball player's 4000 hour bad run is still not within my definition of long term. I'm talking lifetime. And I feel the only obstacle for a good player is bankroll. I agree many good players run bad (or more likely overplay their bankroll to begin with), and they're out of the picture never to be heard from again. Or if they do resurface, it's at much lower limits, so people look at him and say, see how this game is all luck? When in fact, it's not as much a matter of luck or skill. He wasn't properly bankrolled.
Your friend's experience is unfortunate. But with all due respect to your friend, it's much more likely he is talking one game and playing another. Many people do this and are totaly unaware they are even doing it! I also have a friend who often involves me in deep conversations with finger on chin, contemplating the intricacies of AJo in various situations. Going on about how problematic this hand can be. An hour later, he's in a game and gets top set cracked by some guy who couldn't recognize the nuts in a jar of Planter's, who goes on to hit a gutterball dummy end straight with a 2 flush on board. AJo? My friend is now 3 betting this guy with K5s!!!
You are correct that we all want to believe that hard work pays off. But poker is a game of high skill factor. It's also a game of high short term luck factor. But in the long run, the better players will always get the chips. IMO.
= Raider =
.
But Raider, you don't think 4000 hours is the long run? We just heard from skp who just stated that if he ran bad for even a thousand hours he would quit poker. People aren't machines. No one has the psychological strength to withstand a 4000 hour losing streak. Any sane human being will quit poker long before they play 4000 hours of losing poker unless they really don't care about winning at all and have some sort of neurotic need to punish themselves.
Maybe you're right. If your livelihood depends on a poker income, you obviously can't afford to run bad for more than a couple of months. I guess I'm talking lifetime. I've been playing golf now for 6 years and still can't score no matter how well I seem to hit the ball. But I'm not giving up.
I guess it's easy to lose sight of why people play this game. And we should never do that, cuz we make money at the table off people's different motives. I play for the money, enjoyment and competition. If I had a losing year, I wouldn't miss a beat the next year. I just love the game too much. I'm in it for the long haul. I'm hoping it may help pay my kid's college tuition, supplement my retirement or some other material benefit. But one thing I know it will give me is the satisfaction of having a hobby I enjoy. No bad beats or bad luck can take that away. But to think that it's possible I'll be an old man someday, looking back at my current profits wiped out and still trying to play catch up is the most depressing thought I can think of!
= Raider =
I personally know of at least 3 winning traders who experienced three year losing streaks. I have also read about many big time traders who have experienced a similar fate - but they won hundreds of millions in the long run. You need a trader mind-set to succeed at poker.
A million hands is ten thousand hours of blackjack, or ten years of full-time play. In a reasonable game the mean equals the standard deviation after 400 hours. So a loss after ten thousand hours is a -5 standard deviation event, which is rarer than 1/million. If a million counters played independently then there is a 75% chance none of them would lose money.
Actually under typical playing conditions you will not average 100 hands per hour when you play blackjack unless the table is very shorthanded. At a typical table you will average about 50-60 hands per hour.
According to Julian Braun, assuming a reasonable betting spread, the standard deviation is roughly (1.1)/(square root of N) where N is the number of hands played. If N=1,000,000 then the standard deviation is roughly 0.11%. If your edge is only 0.5% then you only have to be 4.54 standard deviates off the mean to be losing. If you are 3 standard deviates off then you are about 1 in 100. If you are 4 standard deviates off then you are about 1 in maybe 2000. In a population of 1 million I would think there would be hundreds of players who would be 4.5 standard deviates off their expectation.
What do you think?
You and your friend might agree on this extreme statement:
A player with a positive edge and infinite playing time will increase his bankroll.
If you both agree, work back from infinite playing time to some length of time where you disagree that the bankroll will increase and you might discover to what extent you disagree on the "luck factor" in poker.
CAUTION: you might be best served by some of that fancy statistical mumbo jumbo.
What do I think? I think:
A player with a positive edge and much playing time will probably increase his bankroll.
Are you in sales? Great approach!
Although I think you need to add sufficient bankroll, to positive edge and infinite playing time.
= Raider =
Guys, I've been a professional poker player for two years now, mostly playing 5/10 to 15/30 Stud. I play in a daily home game and make frequent weekend trips to Taj, Trop and Foxwoods. Just started playing HE in JUly and have been getting whacked. Because I just started, I play book tight, but have had several sessions where I never won a single hand, not even the blinds. Top two has been the "hand of death" for me, have lost 70% of the time I hit it. I haven't kept track of my losing hours, but it's close to 500. Am down $2,500 on Paradise, and 19 of that is HE, the only reason I don't think it's fixed, is that I'm down $1,700 in casino play. Simply put, I'm running bad, a lot of people think that means you don't get good cards, but what it means is that you get good cards, but keep being second best. My bankroll is shrivelling fast, and I've found myself playing a lot of 3/6 which means even more suckouts. Since I have a small son I recently had to take a part-time job, but I have no doubt that I can ride this thing out. This period has greatly improved my game, becuase I'm trying to find any and everything I might be doing to contribute. But I won't lie, it's tough, when I look down and see AA, I get scared, I know I gotta play it fast, but I know how I'm running too. And when those bullets get cracked I wish I hadn't made it three bets Pre-flop, but Hey, what else are you gonna do? At Stud I only had 1 losing month and I only lost $600 in that month, that was nothing really, compared to this. But if you love the game and hate working a "real" job as much as I do there's no alternative.But believe you me you can play well and still lose for a while. I just hope I don't find out what it's like to lose for 100 or more hours.
But I won't lie, it's tough, when I look down and see AA, I get scared, I know I gotta play it fast, but I know how I'm running too. And when those bullets get cracked I wish I hadn't made it three bets Pre-flop, but Hey, what else are you gonna do?
---SNIP--
Friend, I don't know if you realize how big a problem you got. When you look down to see AA and think anything but yiiipieeee!!! Your mind just ain't right for pro poker. Wishing you hadn't made it 3 bets pre-flop? You're losing it... Take a break. I'm being sincere. Take care of that kid of yours and get back to poker when your head's screwed on straight.
= Raider =
I don't think yiiiipppiieee when I get AA. I think let's play it in a better way than the other people at the table. Just as every single hand I get.
But I'll bet your'e not scared, are you?
Haha. I'm not in sales, I just like to argue.
You are right about "sufficient bankroll." Our hypothetical player won't be able to play an infinite number of hands if he goes bust, hm?
Almost all players who lost money in the game said they are good players but have no luck in the game, and it is a very rare case (I hear) a player says his game needs to be improved. The game is complicated and there are many aspects from which a player could gain edge over others if he is willing to improve his game, and the winning is comming from the sum of those small edges. If a player is only good at one aspect of the game, his edge may not be good enough to beat the game.
I have had loosing streaks myself, and I believe only that person himself should know what has happened with the bad streak if he is honest with himself.
regards,
jikun
Who was it that said "The harder I work, the luckier I get"?
I think this adage applies very well to poker. Players who work very hard on sharpening their skills and discipline will, in the long run, be 'luckier' than people who play many speculative hands.
How much luck plays a part in an individual's game depends on how that individual plays.
Take me, for instance, I am the unluckiest person I know. I never win drawings lotteries, or anything of the sort. Whenever I try to suck out, I miss - or if I hit, it improves my opponent's hand more than mine.
When people try to suck out on me, they hit far more often than odds dictate,and their flush almost never fills up my two pair. What am I supposed to do?
What I am supposed to do is play better and more disciplined than my opponents. Only through solid, disciplined play can I beat 'lucky' opponents.
Let me start by saying that after reading a few threads I found your thoughts to be incredibly valuable, just as they were.
That is right, I posted here in the past; over a year ago at least, but between then and now I took a few swings both in life and at the table that kept me away from the game.
Several months ago I began re-studying the game and playing much more. Just recently I sat in my first $10-$20 game though, but my experience thus far lies in $5-$10.
Getting to my point of this message, how do I scout a card room for the right game. Is it proper to sit in games and continue to request table changes until I am find the right game? I believe I only requested a table change once before. Maybe I should do it more often.
Should I look for anything in particular at a table while walking the floor? Large pots?
Thanks, Michael
PS. Glad to be back
Look for multiway pots. The more callers the better. Be alert to changing conditions and request table changes as appropriate.
I look for big pots, with 4 and 5 way action. I like to see the chips pile high, and I like to sit to the left of the money. It is nice to play in loose passive games (not much raising), and lots of callers to the river. I play more hands for the limp, but can wait for the monster and let the people do my bidding till 6th street. I particularily like people who fold the river if they do not get 2 high pair or better. I can induce a call from them 90% of the time, but I can usually make them fold too if I think they have 2 small pair and I have a dangerous looking hand.
No question about it, in my opinion. Game selection is the number one determiner of success, at least for me. I look for games where there are too many people in most pots.
Don't know about changing tables. It's not always that easy to change. I almost immediately get out if the game isn't right for me. Has little to do with winning or losing, at least for me. Has everything to do with confidence level.
Play in the right game and winning takes care of itself.
Buzz
It's not always easy to tell without playing a while. A couple of multi-way pots during your 5 minutes of scouting may not indicate a good loose game. Most casinos will let you change tables immediately if you're changing to a different game. That's why it's good not to restrict your games to stud or hold'em exclusively. You should play well at both so you can move in and out to find a good game.
Having said that:
Larger stacks: Self-explanatory.
Age: A younger table is better than an older table. If I get assigned to a table of older white men, I'm not expecting much. I'm usually right and have to move within 20 minutes.
Noise: More is better. Laughing is good. Drinking is good.
Table on tilt: Always good. After you play in a room for awhile, you'll get to know the troublemakers who get everyone excited, usually by playing maniacally. I always want to play there too. Lots of chances for trapping and isolating.
Short handed tables: Also good if it's reduced collection/rake. If you're good, your edge is magnified in a short game.
Michael,
If you start playing regularly, you will begin to recognize regulars in your cardroom. Most of them won't be great players, but few of them will be fish. If you see regular fish at a table, that's great for you, because you'll already know what their weaknesses are, and how to exploit them.
Usually, there will be several regulars, who play at least reasonably well, and several unfamiliar players. Watch the unfamiliar players, and look for mistakes that they make. If thier mistakes are frequent, or many, you've found a good game. If you play a couple of rounds, and don't see any of the strangers make an outrageosly bad play, then you can usually do better at another table.
If nobody is at the table but familiar, decent players, don't even bother to sit down.
If there is a must move game, usually sit down regardless of the lineup. Often pit and slots players lose so quickly at the must move that they never even make it to the main game. If there is no board, or I don't recognize the names on the list, I will sit in a must move game even if the current lineup is tough.
B$
I look for quite a few things in a game.
You mentioned large pots, that's always good. I like to see a some commotion, some yelling, and definitely laughter. Good natured taunts and insults being tossed around is a good sign. A dead silent poker game is usually not a real good one, unless you really know the players.
In watching the gameplay, I like to see a lot of suckouts, a lot of people hanging on to speculative hands. A live straddle here and there is good too.
I DON"T lurk around the room, "looking" like I am trying to find a bunch of fish. I see guys do that, being obvious about it, sort of standing over the table with a knowing sneer on their face looking at the pot size. This is the kind of guy who wonders where all the action went when he sits down.
I will usually sit in the first game available and keep my eyes on the other tables and see what the action is like. I try to be friendly with dealers and brushpeople and I will ask them what the games they've seen are like.
I toke reasonably well, although not extravagantly, and that usually buys me enough good will to be privy to information and to be welcome in those fun dealer games.
Hope that is of some help.
Don't be afraid to ask for table changes, it's perfectly acceptable and often necessary. Sometimes you have to take the first game you can get while waiting for the game you really want. I once waited for 2 1/2 hours to get into a particularly good game, and it was worth the wait! Changing games is a perfectly normal thing for a good player to do. You have to watch the games and decide which one is the best one to play in, then do what it takes to get into that game.
As far as what to look for, watch the action and see what is happening. Are many players taking the flop or few? Are the pots really large? If so, is this because there is a lot of players calling one or two bets, or are there a few players who are raising and reraising frequently? What kinds of hands are being shown down in the end? Are the players having a good time, laughing and joking, or is everyone deadly serious?
My favorite games are fairly loose-passive with not too much raising and at least 3 or 4 players in each hand. I also like happy, joking people, not serious ones. I find these are the easiest to beat and my swings are less.
In the end, you have to find the best game for which you are adequately bankrolled and play in that game. Sometimes the game might change, such as if several loose players bust and are replaced by tight ones. When this happens, the best game in the house may very well be at another table, in which case you should change tables.
dave in cali
why is that guy in dark angel the dorkiest guy in the world. I almost threw a boot at the TV. I actually did! My boot! I'm not kidding, this isn't a joke.
he fell asleep! Just like Craig! But with the dark angel girl!
I need some empathy here brothers.
a.
I hear ya. Unless you're a 90 year old man on blood pressure medication, that behavior is inexcusable. Jessica Alba is one of the hottest women on the planet.
You gotta stop believing what they show you on TV. I bet he could not control himself and had to do a zillion takes, because he could keep his hands off of her. It's funny how they never show the truth on TV.
AleB, You spelled impotent wrong.
Vince
Vinny,
Excellent! Keep up the good work....... ;>)
?
She's above the above and beyond the beyond. Drop life gorgeous.
WFM sleeps with the fishes.
i suppose i'd let lisa simpson translate my opinion of miss alba to transcendent. however, i would of course prefer groin grabbingly transcendent.
one further theoery on jessica is that she is my age and, as far as i know, not currently enrolled in any institute for higher learning. my plan is that she follow the footsteps of julia stiles, rogue and a couple of other attractive young actresses to harlem and make her residence in my bed. i would never ever ever ever ever fall asleep. ever. or leave my room.
also, alex and i decided that while her character is only in heat three times a year, she herself is a nympho all year round. i dont know it to be false and i dont waste my faith on god. so it must be true.
scott
scott,
Since I'm so out of touch with pop culture and don't watch much TV I had to check out who you were talking about so I found the official fan site using www.google.com.
At the sight they had a page were fans could post their favorite pictures. There was a scott in "small caps" who posted on the sight. Was that you?
Regards,
Rick
that guy may be a loser, but when she was getting her max on to the max, i was in max city. i think her going into heat every so often is a great idea. it will add realism to the show.
scott
Man, why don't you kids go to Cornell instead of boring Columbia in boring NYC? Oh, wait, I know why...
.
nt
Are short playing sessions detrimental to your winning?
I am a part time player. I have a full time job with a decent salary. I play when I can fit it in between job and family. I average 40 hours a month. In order to squeeze in some playing time I might take a long lunch and play for an hour and a half and dash back to work. Otherwise I will get off of work early and play for an hour or two before having a (late) dinner. When I play on the weekends, it could be between a two to five hour session.
After reading the 'luck' thread posted, I don't feel so bad about my results. My hourly rate is negative, but it has gradually improved to be less negative :(
I met John Feeney and discussed my results with him one day and he suggested that maybe I should play longer sessions so that I don't get whipsawed short term. During my longer sessions on the weekends it seems to work because I can recover from an initial drop. But if I get hit in the first hour and have to leave, I keep recording negative sessions.
What do you think?
-Keith O
Keith -- Just a clarification. I don't remember for sure, but I think I recommended longer sessions so that you'd have time to assess and adjust to your opponents, get into the feel of the game, and so on. In theory, session length shouldn't matter at all. But if you play better after an hour or so, as your head gets into the game, and after you've had a chance to size up unfamiliar players, etc., then somewhat longer sessions might just be indicated.
One thing to keep in mind is that in poker you tend to lose most of the time. This has something to do with antes and blinds and many speculative hands which only rarely turn into winners. What happens is that assuming you are an overall winner you rely on the occasional big hand to get you back to even and then ahead. This means that if you play short sessions you should expect to record many losses. However, you should also record enough wins so that your overall results are positive, and some of these wins should be substantial.
This is exactly why it is so pointless to worry about winning sessions versus losing sessions and to think that a good player necessarily has to win a certain percentage of his playing sessions. The only thing that matters is how many hours you play and what your results are over the cumulative number of hours. I have never understood why so many players in this town are fixated on how many winning sessions they have or what their winning session percentage is.
Everytime someone has told me about his great winning sessions versus losing sessions ratio, he almost always says it with a lot of pride. My conclusion is that it is probably an ego thing. And as we all know, ego is not rational. Add to this the fact that the short term is always more urgent than the long term, and you have pretty clear picture of why people always wanna have a good win/lose ratio. Of course, this says absolutely nothing about whether he will be winner in the long term.
This matters only to the extent that you may not be able to get a good line on your opponent's play. Also, you may not be able to form a proper table image. This latter issue should not be as much of a problem since table images can change anyway and you should be able to take advantage of whatever your current image happens to be. You also do not have enough time to set up plays for the future unless you are playing with the same players during these short sessions.
I believe that all of the above is important and can effect on how you do overall. But from just a swing standpoint, I don't think it matters if you played 500 1 hour sessions or 50 10 hour sessions.
= Raider =
4 hours is the optimum playing session length.
From what/who's standpoint?
KeithO,
Are short playing sessions detrimental to your winning?
Over the long run it should balance out, but if your just going over there to play for a quick fix and get an adrenalin rush then I would say it would be detrimental. Usually the best sessions I have are when my slate is clean, I'm in a good mood, and I'm definitely not thinking about going back to work. These are all head things that just help me see the game better, in your case I personally would have a tuff time concentrating on the game without something coming up from work that morning or work that I have to go back to. I would suggest to read about poker for your lunch time and play when your slate is clean and schedule time to play and enjoy.
Paul
A while ago I did a statistical analysis of my results that showed a statistically significantly worse expected value per minute for short sessions versus long. I suspect that this is simply because I bail quickly from bad games and stay in good games a long time. I also generally leave tables when I'm getting pounded, as that's no good for my image and stealing ability. It could also be because I do better once I have a chance to get a handle on my previously unseen opponents. (BTW, I record a different session for each table I play at.)
You ask about squeezing in short sessions at lunchtime or whenever. If you never play long sessions, then, relative to someone who does, you'll give up lots of hours in good games and spend a higher proportion of your hours in bad games.
By the way, I think extremely long sessions, like in the 12+ hour range are harmful too. You can't be playing your best by that time, and you may be a fish. I place little faith in David Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Toothpicks.
-Abdul
x
FTOT:
(Methematical): A toothpick laid on its side will stay in place and tend to resist forces to set it on its end. A toothpick stood on its end will stay in place but will gleefully embrace any force to lay it on its side, such as a breeze.
(Street Wise): Toothpicks fall over.
(Philosophical): Dental floss cannot stand on its end.
(Practical): Its easier to stand toothpicks on their end before you've played 10 hours than after.
(Advice): If you are tempted to stand toothpicks on their end then there is a very high likelyhood that your judgement is too bad to notice that your judgement is bad. Time to go home (and play Leggos).
- Louie
I think the Sklansky theory has something to do with toothpicks being inserted between the upper and lower eyelids about 4am.
I was playing the other night next to a prop player, and as it got late, she was getting really sleepy, but they wanted her at the table to keep it from breaking up (we were about 7 handed, but it was slowing down). She would fall asleep between hands, the dealer would wake her up, she'd look at her cards and fold. About every three hands, she'd look at hear cards, go to fold, then suddenly sit up, raise, and ask where the button was.
She got no action.
I think longer sessions are better because you get to better use the knowledge you have gained by watching the other players at the table.
In a short session, just about the time you have a feel for the players and the table you are on, you get up and leave.
In theory, probably not.
In practice, they probably are detrimental. This is because it is just natural for players to want to leave the game winners. Ya, it's all one long session. Ya, results for a given day don't matter yada yada yada but face it, you want to win today..not tomorrow or by the end of the month but today. So, if you are stuck a couple hundred and you have got 10 minutes left before you have to go back to work or whatever, it is virtually impossible to resist the urge to play some weak hands that you would not play if you had a few more hours to kill at the tables.
I have almost never played a good game when I have been under time pressures.
What is the proper bankroll for a loose, low limit game? Is it 50 big bets? That's what I have been using and over 100 hours I have been close to getting wiped out. Right now it is up to about 65 BB, but I have had losing sessions of 25-30 BB. If two of these occur in close succession I'm worried about going broke. Are these losing sessions to big? I normally win between 5-10 BB in winning session. The lowest I've been at is 15 BB and I don't feel comfortable sitting at a table with this short a stack.
Jeff
Well, of course the proper bankroll depends on your skill, the skill of your opponents, the looseness/aggressiveness of the games, and the rake. More precisely, the proper bankroll depends on the variance divided by the expected value (for positive expected values.) You may very well need an infinite bankroll. In any case, I doubt 50 big bets is going to suffice for a low limit game.
The proper bankrolls in dollars for $3-$6, $6-$12, and $10-$20 are not very different (for many players/locations), perhaps $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, respectively, for a particular skilled player playing particular beatable games. This is because $3-$6 and $6-$12 are wild (i.e., high variance) with low expected value due to the proportionately higher rake.
-Abdul
Abdul:
> Well, of course the proper bankroll depends on your skill, the skill of your opponents, the looseness/aggressiveness of the games, and the rake.
Another factor it depends upon is your tolerance for risk.
Tom Weideman
Jeff,
I'm no expert, but these are the rules of thumb that I follow (They may have been recommended by an expert, but I can't remember for sure)
If I am not working, and am depending on poker for my livelyhood, and cannot risk going broke, but my bankroll is reasonably large, I want 600 small bets.
If I have some other income, so losses are easier to handle, or there is an *exceptionally* soft game, or my bankroll is too small to worry about protecting, I want 350 small bets.
And just because you start with 6k, it doesn't mean you play 10-20 forever.... if you have a bad week, consider playing 5-10 until you have a 10-20 bankroll again. Of course, after a really good run of cards, consider giving the 15-30 a shot.
B$
i usually buy in for 50 BB's at 5-10 hold'em
I am interested in knowing what some of the best Standard Deviation to Expected Value ratios are among some of the more accomplished players out there.
The best that I have heard of is from a pro in Atlantic City who, after 1000 hours (which I don't think is really enough for these statistics) claims to have an SD of 8 BB and a win rate of 1.5 BB (this is for a 10-20 game). So his SD/EV ratio is 16/3 ~ 5.33.
I would love to hear SD and EV statistics across a wide variety of stakes to get an idea of what kind of statistics I should be shooting for.
I would especially like to hear from people who have a very large number of hours recorded and have kept accurate records.
Thanks.
I made 26 per hour with a SD of 30 per hour playing 4-8 Omaha 8 or better (1-2 blinds) several years ago at Binion's. I played for 960 hrs. I was unfortunately unable to play more hours because I had to move up. Probably luck. I followed John Payne's starting hand requirements.
There is a short discussion of this in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. By the way, the ratio of the mean (win rate) to the standard deviation is known as the "coefficient of variation."
A dealer once told me that a very well known female player made $200/hr at $20-40 over 1K hrs in the late '80s one year. She still plays.
FWIW
That's simply not possible. Win rates on that level are possible in home games, and in the lowest limit casino games (then much reduced by the rake and slow game pace), but in a limit like 20-40, (1) the losses to players that clueless become real significant real quickly to anyone without a trust fund - while gamblers can shake off 2-4 losses, (2) the profit potential would attract enough good players to rapidly burn out the game, and (3) players that bad would never win and just stop playing.
I don't doubt that in a very soft 2-4 Omaha game you could make 5 BB/hr provided that (1) the rake was small, (2) preflop there were always raises and reraises, (3) at least seven people see every flop, and (4) people often draw to non-nut hands, or even to domininated draws - flush on paired board, etc.
I looked a all my hourly SD's and I seem to be hovering around 10 Big Bets per Hour at Texas Hold'em using Mason's equation. Any other 2+2'ers seeing this?
CV
I'm getting a SD of around 5 BB/hr at this point, but I have a limited amount of playing time to draw upon...
GB
10 BB/Hour SD would be about right for California $20-$40, but it would suggest you're playing too many hands too far in Vegas $30-$60, where 7-8 BB/Hour SD would be about right.
-Abdul
I did notice that my standard deviation increased when I started to make more risky bets on the end. It also upped my winrate too. I'll think about opening with less hands though.
CV
With 213 hours mainly at 6/12 my SD is $108.
"Swelled pots are a source of frustration. For a drunken, Rolex-wearing German tourist with a miniskirt chick hanging on his shoulder, this is fun. For a pro with a modest bankroll, big pots are toying with death. You can see traces of sweat on his forehead and upper lip. It's a nightmare" - Izmet Fekali
I read this months ago, and many times since, I've been reminded of it, with reactions ranging from laughing aloud, to breaking out in a sweat on my forehead and upper lip.
But I didn't remember where I'd read or heard it until I revisited Izmet's page (www.fekali.com) just now.
Hopefully Izmet doesn't mind that I quote him here, and others find this tidbit as amusing (and true) as I do.
B$
The flop is 10-5-6 rainbow . SB bet , 2 call , cutoff raise (this guy is not a bad player ) . I was ready to raise but now i'm not sur if if my hand is enought strong to re-raise what could he has ? 6-6 ? 7-8 ? I just call , 5 see the turn which I like , it's a JAck so , we have 10-5-6-J , I have the best possible hand . It's check to me (what I don't like) I put cutoff on 7-8 or 10-A. I bet , cutoff is the only one with me to see the river which is a A (10-5-6_J_A )cutoff check and call , I open my JJ , he says 2 pairs on the flop , (5d6d). I take the 250$ pot . Should I have preflop raise ? Should I have re-raise to isolate a "maybe draw" and make fold over cards to my JJs
Yes, you should raise with pocket Jacks pre-flop and you should re-raise on the flop with your over pair. You must make anyone with a Queen, King, or an Ace pay through the nose to take off a card here since you are vulnerable. Of course you bet the turn and the river.
I was just wondering what the purpose is of kills, how exactly they are played, and what the stregy is when playing in games that involve them.
Kills effectively raise the stakes. There are varying rules, but one common type of kill game is played in cali where I play.
Holdem - if you win two pots in a row (there must be a flop each time), then you have to post a double sized blind called a kill. you post it no matter what your position and continue to post it at the beginning of each hand until you lose a hand. Also, the killer acts last before the flop no matter what his position. When the kill is posted, the stakes double for that hand. For instance, if you are playing 3-6 and post a 6$ kill, then the stakes are 6-12 for that hand, until it is no longer a kill pot.
The presence of a kill in a game effectively makes it a bigger game, for instance a 3-6 game with a kill will play more like 4-8 or 5-10, depending how much action there is and how often it is killed. Many players love to kill it and will play just to try and get the kill, even if it means making dumb plays.
If you win a second pot in a row, you will have to post a kill (double sized blind). There are times when this can effect your strategy.
I believe the primary consideration for someone who has not played in a kill game before is that they do not over-extend their bankroll by playing in a game that is too big. Remember, the kill raises the overall stakes of the game.
dave in cali
I play in a club with a rule that the kill plays in turn. This is a VERY bad rule (for the kill) but offers advantage to players behind the kill, because if you have decent cards and raise, the regular blind(s) are faced with a 3 or more chip call to play.
A kill is a blind raise. If a table had one kill every two rounds, there is more blind money with random cards invested in the game than the table limits otherwise suggest. In my opinion, this favors the tighter players (TPs). If its killed and TPs have no decent holdings, no added cost. If TPs have holdings, its like moving up to a higher game at the instant you have a good hand. So it favors the patient players. Also, a game with a kill bleeds some of the profit from the winner back into the game. Sometimes good players having paid the kill, will not call a raise unless they have a very big hand, because even if they win, they forfeit part of the pot.
"Sometimes good players having paid the kill, will not call a raise unless they have a very big hand, because even if they win, they forfeit part of the pot." Huh? The concept of "forfeit"ing part of the pot is just flat wrong. The killer put up the double blind in the first place; that's his $$$. Very often, the killer will raise his double blind, to make the limpers pay double to see the flop.
I find kill games to be a good way to play above your "normal" comfort level for a short time. Once the killer loses a hand, you go back to the previous limits. If you win a couple of kill pots in a row, you can really add to your earn very quickly.
When you win a kill pot (in a full kill game) you are forced to give back (as a "kill" post on the next hand) what amounts to one regular (non-kill) big bet. I read Zen's post to mean that the winner of the kill pot has to give back part of the pot to the next hand, amounting to a forfeiture of one big bet.
Once the killer has posted the kill blind, the money is no longer "his $$$." It seems to me that giving back (as a post for the next hand) what amounts to one big bet amounts to forfeiting part of the pot he/she has just won. Am I missing something here?
Unless you want to play for higher stakes so badly that you're willing to voluntarily post an extra double blind for the rest of the gang, a reasonable strategy, if the pot is close to the kill level, may be to not make a bet that will put the pot over the kill level, especially when you don't have the absolute nuts. When you win the hand, if that one extra bet you get out of someone puts the pot over the kill level, you will be posting that one extra bet you have won as the "kill" blind for the next deal. If no one raises your kill, then you get a look at the flop for the next deal for the price of your kill blind post, a slight benefit to you, but one for which you have to pay the price of the kill blind post.
Wouldn't you rather just keep the (kill blind) money and look at your cards before deciding whether or not to pay to play in the next hand?
If you play every hand indiscriminately, then maybe it doesn't matter much. Players who are selective about the hands they play don't seem eager to post kill blinds (that's as per my observations).
I agree it's great when someone else posts the kill blind (unless it's your regular blind that gets raised). I don't agree that tight players benefit from kill blinds. More experienced players who have already thought about what to do in kill situations probably do benefit from kill games.
I have heard that the intent of the "kill game" is to generate more action and make the game more exciting. Doesn't work for me, but perhaps it does for others.
I mostly just play my regular game when the kill is in effect. If you're intimidated by the doubling of the stakes (or intimidated by anything else) then you probably don't play your best game.
Some players seem intimidated by the kill. Perhaps the kill raises the stakes to a level that is too expensive for them. I don't think that anyone should play in a game at a higher level than he/she can afford. It may be exciting to "bet the farm," but it seems very foolish.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Where I play (Indian casinos near Albuquerque), kill pots are generated when one wins two hands in a row or one wins both the high and low hands in a hi/lo split game. The only condition is the requirement for a flop; pot size is irrelevant. Additionally, it's only a "half kill," so 4-8 goes to 6-12, etc.
Buzz, I don't disagree with anything you've posted. I guess I (over?)reacted to the "forfeit" word. I don't like the concept of worrying about winning a (second) pot 'cause then I might have to post a kill blind.
Paul -
"I don't like the concept of worrying about winning a (second) pot 'cause then I might have to post a kill blind."
I agree. A win is always profitable, even if you have to post the kill blind.
I play Omaha high/low and crazy pineapple high/low in the Los Angeles area, mostly in $3-$6 games with a full kill. Sometimes, if there is a game going, I play $6-$12 Omaha with a half kill. If you scoop a pot in Omaha high/low or pineapple high/low and the pot is over a certain amount, then you have to post a kill blind. The amount over which the pot has to be varies from casino to casino.
In Omaha high/low I only like about one pre-flop hand out of six (although often, depending on the game situation and my position, I play more). In a full (nine player) game, including the blind(s), I probably average playing two Omaha high/low hands out of nine. In crazy pineapple I probably average playing between three and four hands out of nine.
In either game, I consider the amount in the pot and whether a bet by me will make a kill pot before placing a bet.
For example, if I am playing $3-$6 Omaha high/low with kill, and if the amount that has to be in the pot for the kill rule to take effect is, say $60, then (1) if I am heads up with someone, (2) if the pot is already $54, (3) if low is unlikely or impossible, (4) if I am second to act, (5) if I am pretty sure that my opponent will call my bet, and (6) if I am not very certain that I have the best hand, I just lay down my hand instead of betting on the end. (If my last bet has no effect on whether the next pot will be a kill, then, of course, I make that extra bet on the end).
My reasoning is that if I am only, say, 67% sure I have a winner (and thus 33% sure I have a loser but certain I will be called if I bet), then 67% of the time I will win an extra $6 if I bet, but will have to post that $6 on the next hand. Chances are that I'll fold my hand after the flop, because, in general, I don't play after the flop in Omaha high/low without having the nuts or a good chance to hit the nuts on the turn or the river. (My crazy pineapple high/low strategy is a bit looser, but I still need a good hand or a good draw after the flop to continue).
Thus 67% of the time if I win the one extra bet that wins me the kill button, I post the kill and probably forfeit it (there's that word again - maybe I'm misusing it). The other 33% of the time I lose that one extra bet. I figure it's a losing tactic to put that extra bet in the pot on the end in this situation. Of course if I figure my opponent might fold then I'll put in the extra bet on the end - or if I'm sure I have a winner I'll also put in the extra bet on the end.
It's admitedly only a small edge factor in the above (example) situation, but it's part of my thinking.
I also use a slightly modified strategy in other kill game situations. for example, if (1) I'm sitting behind the kill poster, (2) depending on the game and the (3a) tightness or (3b) wimpiness of my opponents, (4) if I want to limit the field, (5) sometimes I'll raise the kill hoping to induce the players behind me to fold. If the tight players don't fold to a double bet, especially with the kill in effect, then I'm very sure they have quality hands. Usually tight players have quality hands anyway, so it's probably not that big a deal.
If someone else posts a kill blind and it is my turn to post the regular blind (with the collection to follow), and if continuing playing is marginal, I might decide it's time to go home and thus save the six or seven bucks (depending on which casino I'm in) it costs to play a round.
Thus the kill aspect has some effect on my strategy and even on how long I might stay in the game.
Buzz
In another thread Rounder said that it is always good to see 7CS players at a Hold'em table, but the discussion did not go to far since the initial subject was different ("Appropriate Stakes" in the Beginners Forum).
When I asked him why he liked Stud players at the Hold'em table, he said "There are certain rhythms in a hold'em poker game and they are different in stud. For example, there is no button per se--high hands are leading the betting in stud so position is meaningless, BUT in hold 'em position is a very important aspect. You will see 7cs players playing a lot of crappy hands up front for raises and not knowing when to muck the hand. There are others, but those are a few that come to mind."
Anyway, I think this deserves a lot more discussion. I have played a lot of Stud fairly well and am now learning Hold'em this last year. I find the two games very, very different and I am fascinated by all the new angles that Hold'em has that Stud doesn't (although clearly Stud has lots of things going on that Hold'em doesn't). For example, it is also often good to have a Hold'em player sit down at a Stud table--so many of them have no idea how to deal with all those cards on the table.
But the ongoing debate about which game is better or more difficult does not really interest me as much. They are both richly textured games and the debates on this forum seem to mainly be between people who know one game well, but not the other.
So here are a few questions--why do HE players like to see 7CS players at the table and why do 7CS players like to see HE players at the table? And what do real poker players think about this-that is, the ones that can play both games well?
"So here are a few questions--why do HE players like to see 7CS players at the table and why do 7CS players like to see HE players at the table? And what do real poker players think about this-that is, the ones that can play both games well? "
As a player of both games, I can tell you this: Each game specialist wants to see the other type of player sit at the table because they do not expect them to understand the specifics of the "new" game, and therefore expect them to be easier opponents. But actually, you already seem to have answered that question for yourself, judging from your post.
I play both games, though I have played much more holdem since moving to cali. Still though, the debate can rage forever and it will never be solved. For me, I actually made more $$ playing stud than I have at holdem, but I have been able to win at both games at my limits. I have studied both games in detail, as well as general poker theory. I believe that because I have a good memory for cards and have good mathematical skills, I have a more pronounced advantage over the typical stud player than I do the typical holdem player, which is probably why I made more $$ playing stud than holdem. Still though, both games are beatable if you put in the time to learn and practice.
I will say this though, holdem is definitely more exciting, at least for me, because stud just moves too slow!
dave in cali
I play both games, and I pretty much agree with what Dave said above, in that "specialists" in either game feel (and usually rightfully so) that they have a bigger advantage over players who normally play the other game, than the usual players of their game. Both games have many unique aspects that you must adjust for. I tend to prefer Hold'em, but I do just about as well at stud, and force myself to play it from time to time.
The only other comment I would have is: Position is NOT meaningless in stud, as you asserted. Certainly, it is not as big a factor in stud as it is hold'em (since your position can change every round in stud), but if you aren't considering your position with respect to the likely lead-bettor in stud, then you are costing yourself $$.
Steve
Actually it was Rounder that said position did not matter in Stud and I agree with you on that issue. Position is just relatively less important in Stud than HE.
nt
Having played both low limit stud and low and middle limit hold-em, my experience tells me that stud players play stud far better than hold-em players play hold-em. If you watch a $20-$40 hold-em game by writing down the two card holding of the winning hand at showdown and what the position and betting was pre-flop, you will find that in about 20%-30% of the cases the winning hand had no business in the pot to begin with (e.g.- you see someone drag a pot with Q-8 suited having made a flush but you observe they were under-the-gun, etc.). Now if you were to watch even a $5-$10 stud game you would not see this same sort of thing a very high percentage of the time. This is why I switched from stud to hold-em in 1998.
Greetings:
I would agree with that. I think there must be something instrinsic about 7 card stud which discounts the expectations about the future cards. With 7 card stud, you can start out with 3 crappy cards and for the most part know it, and know that the next help is only going to be one card which probably won't help the garbage anyway, thus more starting hands are folded off the bat. On the other hand, with hold'em I think there's that flop fascination which gives the player holding the Q-4 suited or the 7-6 offsuit a glimmer of hope.
Me personally, I think (and like) hold'em is a better game for the skilled player (low-limit) because 7 card stud is more a game of cards whereas hold'em is more a game of position and betting patterns, and playing the voids, of course proper starting hands and working with reasonable flops are still important. To note, I've really never done well with memorizing what cards have been played, though I have done consistently well with low-limit 7stud.
All the best,
JPN
As I said, I have not played a lot of Hold'em, but I want to become a good player at both games.
Why do players are good at one and not the other?
What does it take to be good at both?
Both games require a lot of study and experience. Stud clearly requires better memory because there are more cards to remember.
What else?
J'sPop,
You asked: “Why do players are good at one and not the other?
A lot depends on where you live. Here in Southern California there is much more holdem than stud and you lose very little by not playing stud. If I moved back East near my parents and played at Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, I would just have to get better at stud as the mid limit holdem games are few and far between and tough while the stud games are plentiful. In Las Vegas you should play both as both games are available and one can be good while the other is not on any given day. At the higher limits you must play stud well since many games are played mixed and good stud games at high limits are relatively plentiful at the Commerce in Los Angeles, at the Bellagio in Las Vegas, at Foxwoods, and at the Taj in Atlantic City.
”What does it take to be good at both?”
Mason writes about and plays both well. You may want to pick up his essay books since he talks about this subject quite a bit. But there is no real reason one can’t excel at both.
”What else?”
Stud is harder work because tracking discards is tiring. On the other hand the big stud players in places like Atlantic City and Las Vegas seem to do better.
If both are available in your area, it is worth it to learn both.
Regards,
Rick
In that regard, I've found that I do better in the low to mid limit HE games in Vegas than I do here in N Cal, and better in the low/mid (when i can find it) stud here as opposed to vegas. Most likely this has to do with the players. I think that, with virtually no stud offerings here, players don't know how to play the game, so, being conscious of the differences, I tend to do well in them. In vegas, the locals and some tourists know what they're doing, but there seem to be so many bad playing tourists willing to play 15-30 and 20-40 that they negate the effects of the good players. The good HE players are as good, if not better than, the good ones here, but the bad players in the game are so much worse.
If you don't get the feeling that memory is as important in hold-em, then perhaps you are not cataloging the betting patterns/cards shown/body language of your opponents as well as you could be. You must do this to be a winning player, imho. Memory is a crucial tool in the winning hold-em players bag of tricks.
Jones
All of these things are important in Stud as well PLUS having to memorize many more cards. Again, memory is relatively more important in Stud to HE as position is relatively more important to HE than Stud.
i just want to mention that position is very important in 7cs. it is just not static throughout the hand as it is in holdem. it is extremely important to try to predict the likely action on future streets. you have to be considering things like "do cards that help you force you to act first? if so, can i checkraise for value to try to mitigate the disadvantages of acting first?" "do cards that appear to help you force you to act first? if so, can i bluff profitably if these scare cards fall?" otherwise, some ostensible outs may not win the pot for you or you may lose a bet if you hit one of your real outs. this is why i would sometimes rather have my opp have split K's than split Q's if i am chasing with split 7's and an A kicker.
i play both holdem and stud. stud is more complicated than holdem, but i find it slightly easier to read hands in stud.
scott
IMO, a mediocre stud player who sits in a low limit hold'em game for the first time is likely to do worse than a mediocre hold'em player who gives low limit stud a try. This is because proper hold'em strategy is more frequently counter-intuitive, and because the hand which is in the lead after the second round of betting is more likely to win the pot in hold'em than in stud (i.e., the stud players will be severely punished for chasing after the flop with inadequate values).
Holdem players in stud games tend to not pay enough attention to upcards and whether their hands are live, overvalue trash pairs and 3-straights, and play too tight and passive with second-best hands in large pots.
Stud players in holdem games tend to play too many hands up front, to not play tight enough in raised pots, and to give up their blinds too easily.
I play stud mostly, and I am one of those people who like to see HE players sit down for a while. Below are the big differences I see in the two games.
1. HE is a testosterone game, Stud is a quiet game
2. Agression pays in HE, it eats your bankroll in stud.
3. Stud is slower, HE draws a lot more people who want to 'gamble', but not on the slot machines.
4. Any two cards can win in HE, whereas any hand can get pounded in Stud. AKo is a great HE hand, bet it Stud and you probably will lose. Wait for good Stud hands in HE and the blinds have eaten you alive by the time you get it, and no one will play the hand very far with you.
In general, being scared in HE costs you, while being too aggressive in Stud costs you. To me it's like diving on the right side of the street in the morning and then having to switch at lunch time to driving on the other side. A lot of folks have trouble with it.
Mike
Here is a situtation I'm in. I play a certain online 5/10 HE game and make close to 2BB per hour with a SD of 10BB, I've been doing this for +200hrs in a certain game.
Next, I play in a online 10/20 HE game and have come very close to even after 100hrs with close to the same 10BB SD.
My question is how likely is it that I am a >1BB winner in the 10/20 game, but am just having a bad run of cards? I don't know how to figure it mathematicly, but I think unless I improve my game I am probably best served by playing the 5/10 for now.
Thanks, CV
Chris, I don't think you really have enough hours to make a definitive conclusion. However, it sounds like you may in fact be doing betting in 5-10, at least at the moment, so it wouldn't hurt to keep playing it and build up your bankroll some more before tackling the bigger game.
dave in cali
Assuming your SD of 10 bb/hr is accurate, there is a 16% chance that you are a >1 bb/hr winner at the game. Basically you would be 1 SD below average since the SD for 100 hours would be 100 bb.
100 hours is not nearly long enough to get an accurate read on the SD, but the only way it would be more likely that you are a >1 bb/hr winner is if your SD were greater than 10.
It looks to me like it's much more likely that I'm not a >$20.00 per hour winner at this particular 10/20 game than it is that I am just having a bad run of cards.
Now I can swallow my pride and stick to playing 5/10 and only play really good 10/20 games or I can say that this is just a fluke and I need to have less than favorable results at the 10/20 game for an other 900hrs before I come to my senses. Of course it would be hard not to improve my game along the way, so there is something to be said for stubbornness.
CV
Your SD for 200 hours is 140 bb and you are 200 bb above average for 1 bb/hr in the 5-10 game which is over 1.4 SD. So you are better than 90% certain already that you are beating this game for 1 bb/hr (assuming SD=10).
Lots of people think you can't draw conclusions after a short time, but you CAN if your results are sufficiently good or bad, and you have examples of BOTH.
On the other hand, if you continue to play the 10-20 game and are still even after 400 hours, then you can be 95% certain that you are NOT a 1 bb/hr winner in that game.
What you can say is that it's not likely he is a losing player in 5-10. This should mean he is capable of beating 10-20.
His results are not sufficiently bad enough at 10-20 to draw any kind of conclusion after only 100 hours! Also, 10-20 games usually play more aggressive than 5-10. Meaning, if you're missing many more big draws in a 100 period than you would expect to, this can be a thorn. Since Chris and I already had this discussion in a thread below, he knows I view a 100 period as a mere blink of an eye statistically speaking. And if I were him, I would not be too worried about a 100 hour break even stretch.
= Raider
What you can say is that it's not likely he is a losing player in 5-10. This should mean he is capable of beating 10-20.
Not necessarily. The lineup of players may be completely different, and mid-limit games often take a completely different set of skills (semi-bluffing, stealing, slowplaying, bluffing) than low limit which can be beaten in a more mechanical style.
His results are not sufficiently bad enough at 10-20 to draw any kind of conclusion after only 100 hours!
You can absolutely draw the conclusion that results that bad would only be expected 16% of the time if his SD is 10.
Won't 65% of the people who beat this game for 1 big bet per hour, be somewhere between $0 and $4000.00 after 100 hours? Assuming an hourly deviation is $200/hr?
I see what you're saying that there is a 16% confidence level that he will NOT be at break even after 100 hours, but the above seems to be a better way to look at it. Can you elaborate on this for me? Thanks.
= Raider
Won't 65% of the people who beat this game for 1 big bet per hour, be somewhere between $0 and $4000.00 after 100 hours? Assuming an hourly deviation is $200/hr?
68% will fall in this range that is correct. 16% will be less than 0$ and 16% will be greater than $4000. His result is at the low end of the 68% which would only be better than 16% of the 1 bb/hr players.
Before he even plays we can set up our "confidence intervals" for 1bb/hr. 0-4000 is a 68% confidence interval, less than 0 is a 16% confidence interval, greater than 4000 is also a 16% confidence interval. The confidence intervals represent the probabilities that a known 1bb/hr player would fall in these intervals.
Now Mr. Sklansky might caution us we have to be very careful about interpreting the result that he fell in the 16% confidence interval to mean that "we are 84% confident that he is NOT a 1bb/hr player". We have to keep in mind what we mean by this definition of confidence as described above. A better statement might be that "his result fell at the 16% confidence level". Is this a good way to measure our confidence? Well that's where we get into a philosophical debate, but consider this:
Scientists usually like their results to be at the 5% confidence level. That is, the result they obtain would only occur due to random chance 5% of the time if the hypothesis that they are testing were not correct. In our case we are evaluating the hypothesis that he is a 1 bb/hr player, and our results place us at the 16% confidence level for NOT being such a player because he was 1 SD below average. If he were 1.6 SD below average we would be at the 5% confidence level. Would that mean that we would be "95% confident" that he was not a 1bb/hr player? As long as we keep in mind what this means, yes, though again a better statement is that we "proved this to at the 5% confidence level" and leave it at that. Moreover, we would have met the criterion that scientists use to be confident that he is NOT a 1bb/hr player (though other scientists would then have take more data to collaborate this).
I asked, and you explained. VERY good job. Thank you.
= Raider
If the numbers in the higher game are not so good because you are not getting a decent run of cards, perhaps it can also be the reverse. Your run of cards in the lower game is better than average and your numbers in the higher game are true! Stay with the lower game.
There is not a 16% chance that Chris can beat the 10-20 for a BB an hour. Rather there is a 16% chance that if he can beat it for a big bet, he will be even (or worse) after 100 hours. By no means is this the same thing.
Mr. Sklansky,
Of course you are correct in all you say, but please consider this:
Rather there is a 16% chance that if he can beat it for a big bet, he will be even (or worse) after 100 hours.
In statistical terminology it is correct to translate this to "an average above 1 bb/hr is at the 16% confidence level". My only error was replacing the word "confidence" with the word "chances". I agree that this is terrible mathematically since chances imply probability which is very different. But I was using an everyday use of the word "chances" which can mean confidence, but I agree that this is misleading.
By no means is this the same thing.
Not only is it not the same thing, but trying to interpret the statement that "he has a 16% probability of beating the game for 1 bb/hr" leads us to the edge of very deep waters over which statisticians are divided into two groups.
One group believes that it makes no sense to talk about the probability of his win rate because this would imply that the win rate is a random variable when it is actually a fixed number. If he plays a million hours he will win at that fixed rate, and it will be the same rate for every million hours he plays. We are trying to estimate that fixed number from limited data, and for this they define the notion of confidence as distinct from probability.
The second group of statisticians is able to define the probability of various win rates, but to do this they need to know the distribution of win rates in the general population. Then they can talk about the probability of his win rate by considering the percentage of people who have shown the same statistics over limited data. This group discounts the relevance of the notion of "confidence".
How do you feel your play in those games compares to that of your opponents? Do you sense that you are outplaying your 10-20 opponents and just not getting the results you should be in the short run? Is the 10-20 a much tougher game? Numerical results are often not as useful as your empirical opinions.
That said, many people continue to play tough, unprofitable games when they would actually make more at a lower limit. Made possible by the high game speed, $20/hr is quite a good return, so why not stick to 5-10 unless the 10-20 is especially good this time.
Your assuming that I can tell when I'm being outplayed. ;^)
CV
Hi, I'm looking for some custom chips. Not any special material, other than ceramic, but just to get a custom design printed on them. Any ideas?
There selling them on the Other Topic Forums Right Now!!!!!!!!!
really? what thread? I looked through the all the topics and I didn't see anything...
u can call gambelers book store in las vegas they will send u a cataloge great store .. they do custom chips.. they may have a web site i havent checked ..
http://www.pokerchips.com/
Try Gambler's General Store in Las Vegas(1-800-322-2447).They have a good selection ofchip styles.
I read the recent article by Badg. and agree completely. Following rigid starting hand requirements will get you off to a good start and you will not go off for much but it won't take you very far. So many players including myself are looking for a recipe to follow and there isn't one. I for one am a winning player in 10-20 as a result of S/M but have also realized as the players get better you become an easy mark as you become to predictable.I think Mason/David agree from what i have read.It appears the only way your going to be able to beat mid-limt games for one big bet ann hour is reading players and situations properly and this comes from playing a lot of hold'em.I'd like to know what other people think and appreciate your comments in advance. Lar
I just read this article tonight also. It has very significant points and raises the axiom "it depends" to a new level. This forum has improved dramatically in this area of situational play. Even more so since game sizes have been seperated. I once thought this type of intellegence would never be shared here, but I am glad to say I was wrong. I hope it continues to evolve in this way. It can do so only with game and player dependent questions. I also find it very amusing to see post in the Higher Stakes section that clearly exposes that the poster belongs elsewhere. Nice to be able to recognize this and nice for the game as well. I guess what I'm saying is; good questions, posed well can and often get good answers. Cookbook questions get cookbook answers. The nature of the game is such that routine play becomes less prosperous as the competition gets better and more so as it decreases, regardless game size. Just my 2 cents. Now if we can just get S&M to stop speaking in tonges.
is the 2000 world series being televised this weekend? if so who/when?
Oct 25th on Discovery Channel's "On the Inside"
I live 2.5 hours away from the nearest casino (Turning Stone in Central NY) and can play only once or twice a month for about 6 hours at a time. The casino has only 3 or 4 stud games going at any time and they are usually all 1-5 (seldom do they have 5-10). It usually has 6 -8 HE games going with limits usually up to 15-30, so it is a small poker room. I notice that I win a hand about every 35-40 minutes. I tend to play tight according to Roy West's book on 7CS at lower limits. The games usually have 6 people in after 3rd street.
My goal is to win enough money here to increase my bankroll to move up to the higher limits at other casinos (but they are 4-5 hours away). However I am down $700 for the last 12 months after playing about 150 hours at this casino. The last time I was there, another player thought the forced payment to the casino of $3 every 7-8 hands and the on average 3 forced bets every hour puts the average player down $12 every hour without playing any hands. Since the pots are usually under $30, he theorized that you cannot win enough money to make up for the loses with this "hourly charge" and the hands you lose when you do play.
I think he might be right. I usually break even (after motel and food expenses)or make some money when I go to Taj Mahal where there is a rake of the pot (Max $4) instead of $3 every 8th hand played. With a small pot, there is less taken from the players. Have a streak of cards that you cannot play? The only money you loose are the forced bets. ($3 an hour on average). Because of distance I cannot go there often.
I played twice at Turning Stone last weekend. I lost $91 after playing 7 hours and $86 after playing 5.5 hours. I figured I gave the casino $144 and other players about $30.
Anyone have any thoughts? Have I played enough to make such a conclusion? Am I playing too tight? Are too many good players playing 1-5 because that is the only 7CS game available? Is the casino raking too much money? Or is 1-5 7CS impossible to make money no matter where you play?
Unless your opponents are total idiots, it will be hard to make any real money in 1-5. The pots are so small that people tend not to chase when their hands don't improve. A lot of people play for the bring-in but fold easily when there is any action. The rake is devastating, since few pots reach the cap. You can make a few dollars per hour in spite of this, but you would almost certainly make more in the holdem games even if you are not an expert holdem player.
Is there an ante in the 1-5 game? then I could answer you
Turning stone 1-5 stud specs :
3 dollar button drop that goes straight to the house. I believe this goes back to the bring-in or raiser if there is no 4th street, but I don't think I EVER saw that happen.
No ante - bring in of a bet (minimum $1 though some people will habitually put in more)
In addition, there is VERY strong peer pressure to tip after every pot. Not very many players are actually playing to win, so virtually everyone tips at least a dollar after every pot (and I've seen $5 tips on $50 pots...) On my second trip, I forced myself to tip dealers only every other pot and/or only on the larger pots.
5-10 stud specs
heh - exact same as 1-5 except that there is less tipping and the bring in is $2 (i'm pretty sure - right niels?)
3-6 holdem has the same $3 button drop, though at least this time you have 10 players to go through, instead of 8...
hope this helps
~Krister
No ante per se. You pay $3 to the house at every 8th deal (Or about 3 times an hour give or take a couple minutes). You get that back only if two people or less call the limp in or a raise by the second player to put his chips in. This assumes you have 8 people at the table. When it is short handed, you pay more often down to six palyers. At five players you pay $2.
Just seems like a long way to drive for such a crappy game. Is the rake on the hold'em games the same? If you are looking to improve your game try some low limit on-line stuff. The rake is better, but the players are slightly better than live game players.
At least you will save a lot of money on travel, food, and, room.
CV
It sounds like that casino is charging you 12$/hour as a time charge, is that correct? If so, there is no way you can beat this game. Your hourly expectation at 1-5 stud will rarely be even close to 2.4 big bets per hour, so you will constantly be getting bled by the house and no one will be a winner in the long run. At least in a raked game, you pay less rake yourself if you are a fairly tight player, because you win fewer pots overall. The house still makes out like a bandit, but the game can be beatable if your opponents are poor players. From experience in atlantic city, 1-5 stud can be beaten for a decent profit, but only if there are loose players in the game and the pots get decent sized. If there is nothing but rocks at the table and all the pots are small, forget it, the entire table will get bled by the house. Either way, the AC 5-10 games are much more beatable than the -13 or 1-5 games, but you need a bigger bankroll to play. However, if you are selective about the games you are in, you can find some juicy 1-5 games that you can beat for a reasonable profit.
dave in cali
David, it is not clear from your narrative exactly how the house takes money from the $1-$5 stud game and whether or not there is an ante.
I started my poker career playing $1-$5 stud where there was no ante and the low card had to make a forced bet of $1. The house raked 10% up to a maximum of $5 and they took out an additional $1 for a jackpot on pots exceeding $20. I played 1351 hours and won $7,906 for an earn of $5.83 per hour. My standard deviation was $51 per hour.
I believe the game is very beatable.
I recommend you read Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players by Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky, and Ray Zee. Even though this book is designed for a $15-$30 game with a $2 ante and a $5 bring-in I think many of the tactics discussed are appropriate for all stud games. The Roy West book is fine but I think the 2+2 book is better because it is more thorough and detailed.
To all players who play low limit stud:
I think Jim's data is very realistic and can give everyone trying to master this game a good idea of what you can really expect to make.
One thing though, they were charging up to 5$ on the rake with 1$ for the jackpot. This is pretty darn steep. If you are playing in a game with a lower drop, you can probably expect to make more than this. SLIGHTLY more than this, not MUCH more than this. My personal experiences playing 1-5 in AC with a 4$ rake and no jackpot yeilded about 7.50 an hour, but I did not play as many hours as Jim. Also, the games in AC that I played in were very soft. I had many games to choose from all the time. I avoided rock games like the plague. Jim may not have had as much selection, but his data shows that 1-5 is beatable. If you can find games with a smaller rake, you might make slightly more if you are really a good player.
However, I still think you will do better at 5-10, I did.
dave in cali
Jim,
Thank you for trying to help. Turning Stone's method was summarized well by others but I will do it again and be clearer. Please understand that I have played in only two poker rooms and I thought this method was the common method.
An ante button goes around the table to a new player after every hand. With six or more players at the table, you pay $3. With five you pay $2 and four or less you pay $1. The low card makes a forced bet. That ante button money goes only to the house and does not go into the pot. The only exception is when two people or less players call the forced bet. So if two people call the forced bet, a third raises and everyone folds, that $3 stays with the casino probably netting the raiser only $3. The only time you can ante steal the $3 ante button is when you are the first or second person in after the forced bet. I find this happens about once every two hours or so.
Genrally there are six people to be in a pot after third street assuming no raises.
After playing for a year, I figure the button comes to me every 18 - 24 minutes on average (or about once every twenty minutes). So I figure I pay the house 3 times $3 per hour for just the ante button and $3 per hour for three forced bets ( One forced bet every eighth hand and assuming I do not win the hand) making a cost of playing at $12 an hour just to sit down. This $12 of course does not include the times I go to fourth or fifth street and catch blanks or loose on the river.
I have read 7CS for Advanced Players and do generally play the hands the authors recommend. But that means I play every fifth hand or so. That does not mean that I win every hand. In contrast the usual number of players in after 3d street is six, so I play very tight for the game. It seems I am in 20% of the hands while most everyone else is in 75%. So that is what I need advice on. Do I play too tight or is the game structure designed to make almost any player loose money? Could a professional constantly win money under these conditions?
Plus when people say they make $6 or so an hour playing, does that include taking out your travel, lodging and food expenses? If not, I may never make money at this level if I have to pay for a motel when I do go to AC.
The forced bet is not a cost of playing the game. This bet allows you to continue on at no additional cost unless someone raises which is unusual in $1-$5 without an ante. It would be no more valid to view this as a cost then to view your blind money as a cost in hold-em. The $3 ante button charge is a cost. It is therefore costing you about $9 per hour to play in this game. I am assuming the game is 8 handed. In the Lake Charles, Louisiana $1-$5 game with a 10% rake with a $5 max plus $1 for a jackpot, I figured I won about 2 pots per hour on the average. Assuming the average pot was around $30 to $40 then it was costing me about $7 to $10 per hour to play including the additional $1 for the jackpot. Since I estimate your hourly cost to be comparable to what mine was when I played $1-$5 stud, I therefore believe your game is quite beatable.
No, people do not normally consider travel expenses or food as part of the cost of poker unless they are a professional. However, a professional would not waste his time playing low limit poker. In my situation, if I did not play poker I would be out and about spending money on other things so I do not take travel expenses out of my poker bankroll. Poker bankroll is a very sacred and holy thing to me. Winnings go into it and losses come out of it. Other than that, I don't mess with it. I do allow it to accumulate interest. But its sole purpose is to grow indefinitely so that I can play in bigger games.
you are probably playing too many smaller pairs and not enough drawing hands as thats what wins with so many in for no raises. the game is beatable but not for enough to pump up on. getting experience will pay later if you become a winning player. as of yet you probably are still a breakeven player or a losing one, drawing a quick conclusion from your post. time may change that. if 6 are playing when you are in why arent you raising more often. this will make the pots bigger than 30 bucks quickly. also you should be playing to improve cheaply in unraised pots and make a big hand or get out early. a really good player might make 75 or 100 bucks a night in those games before expenses.
I played at T.S. in the 1-5 games for serveral months after it opened. My opinion is that you will not beat these games for a positive return, even if you play well. The cost to you is 12.00 per hour on average. (We figured it out by tracking deals, using a 7 person game as an average.) This is the same as they charge for the 15-30 Hold-Em game. In A.C. or Vegas, where they rake the pot, you can go through a long run of bad cards at no real cost to you. At T.S. you pay no matter what. You pay 3.00 even if the pot is 6.00. You pay 3.00 even if you haven't seen a starting hand the last time around. It realy sucks.
To help in this setup I beleive you have to loosen up somewhat and play more hands to fourth or fifth street with multi action, especially in the usual games where little raising is seen. Then when you build a hand, raise as much as possible, because you will get callers to the river anyway.
all small stakes games are just stepping stones to bigger ones that are easier to beat. your true hourly cost is what matters , and having bad runs of cards has nothing to do with the rake unless you are unlucky over all your lifetime of playing. your 2nd paragraph is right on the money.
Doesn't every one at "our" level find it hard to crank it down after playing higher limits? I'm better off not playing at all than to sit at 1-5.
I,m new to poker and desperately need to learn how the odds of particular hand are calculated and what they mean. For example, If I hold AK and someone else holds 66, odds wise, why would he be an 11-10 favorite (or whatever it may be), and how is that figured? Or why is someone a 2-1 favorite over another player? I know this is a rudimental concept of poker that I must comprehend to continue playing. Any explanation on this topic would be a huge help.
The odds are computed through what is called "cold simulations". A computer takes a hand like AsKh versus 2c2d for instance and then deals out 5 board cards several million times and tabulates the results. It then comes up with how often the AK won and how often the small pair won and how often there was a tie.
While this sort of thing is very interesting it is not always relevant because in a real hold-em game you don't get to see all the board cards for free. Given that there are betting rounds on the flop, the turn, and the river a small pocket pair will frequently get bet out of the hand without ever getting to the river so it never gets to showdown and win even though it might have ended up as the best hand. This is why hand rankings based on computer simulations are not necessarily meaningful.
"This is why hand rankings based on computer simulations are not necessarily meaningful."
It should be added, "in limit poker."
In NL, where you often get it all-in or face an all-in bet before the flop, your precise matchup odds are of course very relevant.
"Odds" is basically the number of "favorable" outcomes compared to the number of "unfavorable" outcomes expressed as a ratio. So with a full deck there are 13 spades and 39 non-spades, so the chances the first card is a spade is 13:39, normallized to 1:3 "in favor" or 3:1 "against". It is much more common to always express a larger number to a smaller number; or to say "3:1 in favor of a non-spade" rather than "1:3 in favor of a spade".
Counting outcomes works so long as each outcome is equally likely, such as at cards. If you are betting on a spade and are being cheated (i.e. a non-spade is MUCH more likely) than your true odds are much worse than 3:1 against. In this case you would count the outcomes times their relative likelihood.
AK vrs 66 can be calculated since the number of outcomes is reasonably manageable; however Jim Brier's simulation solution is quicker. If you run a million hands and 66 wins 520,000 and AK wins 480,000 then the odds against AK are 52:48 or 13:12.
When wagering, one is conserned not only with these "event" odds but also with the "money" odds. Its silly to take a 13:12 against bet when one is getting 1:1 "even" money on the wager. Casino's are full of these exact silly people but I digress...
"Money" odds in known as "pot" odds in Poker since the money in the pot is the primary money factor. If there is 12 bets in the pot and the opponent bets one, you are getting 13:1 "pot odds". If you will win at least one time in 14 (i.e. 13:1 against) you should take the wager and at least call. ... not counting future bets or redraws or all those other things in the 2+2 fine print...
The odds of my wife just getting home is a 540:19. Since the benefits of me being off the internet when she sees me are high and the benefits of continued babbling is low...
- Louie
my concern about pot limit poker is that the price of seeing the flop/4th street is so small relative to the later betting rounds that hand selection is not all that important-it's not possible to penalise someone playing loosely on the first betting round. on the other hand,in fixed limit and no limit poker bad pre-flop/3rd street play can be penalised much easier. am i right therefore, in thinking that fixed limit/ no limit poker are more skilled than pot limit?
If you define skill by hand selection, then there is less skill in pot and no limit poker. If you define it by reading your opponent, making good laydowns, understanding implied odds and corrected odds and many other things (all harder to master than hand selection), then pot and no limit have more skill. You can see where my bias is...
I feel pot-limit hand selection is a very important part of the game, at least as important as at limit play, likely more so. As for skill, the yardstick I use for measuring it is how much you win. I can win more money in a 10-20 blind PL game than the best limit hold'em player in the world can win playing 20-40 limit with a 10-20 blind--and some people play pot-limit hold'em better than I do.
"I can win more money..."
Is that because of the poorer play of your opponents? I guess the correct question is why can you win more money? I take it that you are referring to hourly rate. Also it seems to me that if you get a bunch of good pot limit poker players around a table you are in a very dangerous situation and the same may be true for no limit. Of course I am just speculating because I don't play those limits. I am glad to see that you also promote good hand selection as a required skill in pot limit. I am of the mind that hand selection is an important part of all poker games where skill is a factor. Except maybe that silly game where you stick a card on your forehead and play game theory against your opponent.
Vince
If you do not play PL/NL then you cannot ever know the joys of having your ability to outplay your opponents well and truly rewarded.
Just think of it; in Limit you can play virtually perfectly and only average about 1 BB/hr. You can know that your opponent is a complete bonehead and yet you can't seem to beat him. If you do beat him it may be only one out of five heads-up contested hands.
In PL/NL you can win your opponents stack as a reward. The bonehead will have a hard time winning your stack. If you aren't willing to commit your stack when you have 4-1 or so the best of it (as in AA vs. a smaller pair) then you shouldn't be playing poker. The nitwit will call you for his stack when you hold the nuts (the NUTS I say!), and you will deftly sidestep him when he holds the nuts.
His poor hand selection will lead him to overcommit with KTo on a flop of K72 when you hold AK, AA or KKK.
If you are afraid of losing your own stack then don't put so much on the table. If you are then still afraid of losing your stack then you are not a man and you would have been laughed at in the Wild West or wherever real men played poker.
By the way playing Indian Poker is not an entirely silly game. I won good money one night playing Indian and I take offense at your remark.
M... Though I take offense at you taking offense I defense your right to your offense.
Vince.
I take offense at your taking offense at my taking offense at your remark. I do defend your right to do so, however. Perhaps you realize it was a highly offensive original remark. If not then I must take offense at your lack of realization, although I do defend your lack of commonsense. I hope you don't take offense at my thus taking your defense. If you do, then I must say I will again be forced to take offense. I hope that won't offend you, but if it does, then this will I commence in your defense:
the difference between the Offense and the Defense of the Offense is the Defense. If this perhaps does not make sense, then look at it as an equation (instead of something making sense).
Offense - (Defense + Offense) = Defense. Likewise:
Defense = (Offense + Defense) - Offense. Hence:
To take offense from one's defense really does not make much sense. To take offense from one's offense is better; apples from apples (if you have horse sense). To read defense in one's offense is card sense (when his bet just makes no sense; a clear pretense).
Now simply to condense, just let me give last two cents: I take offense at EVERYTHING! IMMENSE OFFENSE!!
While it's true you are in more danger with the presence of better players in the game, it's also true that you can and should be avoiding these players with all but your very best hands. The presence of only 1 or 2 weak players, can still make the game a very profitable one for you since they will be your targets, and the results of 1 or 2 key pots against them can make your session.
= Raider
Yeah, Vince, if there is a form of poker where selection of starting hands is not an important factor, I have not yet played it. The reason there is more skill in pot-limit is there are more tools you can use. For example, how many times at limit play have you gotten a strong feeling your opponent had a good hand and had you beaten--but put the money in anyway because the pot odds were so large you could not afford to be wrong. pot-limit lets you use those skills and fold. There is no question that the people who play pot-limit, the ordinary players, are more skillful than th ordinary limit players, so it is not the caliber of the opposition that makes a pot-limit player find the game attractive.
Bob, By stating that you will win a lot more in a PL game than the best player in a limit game with similar blinds, I assume you mean as an average hourly rate. What then can a PL player expect to earn per hour? Is there a formula to estimate win rate based on the blinds in a pot limit game? Wouldn't you have to consider stack sizes and the amount of money in play?
Is it possible that you are playing in games without much preflop raising? Hand selection is different in PL than in L and NL, but it is just as difficult, if not more so, IMHO. I love to sit down with limit players and watch them play their draws from up front...
Potlimit in some ways requires more skill then limit and nolimit.The real art is in building apot and trapping your opponent all at the same time.
Try to play loose and/or without hand selection in PLO, especially in early positions, and you will be killed.
I am finding that I tend to play worse when there's a maniac on my left. I find that I will either call too much with monster draws or lose the best hand. Basically, I'm asking for help to handle the mad raiser on my left. I know to start with top quality hands but when is that enough if he always raises you no matter what you do? If I raise he re-raises. If I call he raises. It's too hard to put him on a hand and I can't figure out a way to truly protect myself except to not play if I can't get a seat change. Here's an example:
I have pocket 9's in middle-late position and only call because I know Mr. Auto-Raise (MAR) will raise it up. MAR raises and it's heads up. The flop is 629 rainbow. I bet, MAR raises, I re-raise, MAR re-raises and I call. The turn is a 3 (no flush possibility). I bet, MAR raises, I re-raise, MAR re-raises and I call (do you see a pattern here?). The river is a 5. I bet, MAR raises. I look at the board again and realize that he could have a straight and I call. He show's K4o. I muck my hand.
I didn't get him out of any pot nor did I show down a winner even though I had showed strength. Like the example above, I had the clear winner all the way and he'll come up with a ball buster on the end. I lost, I would guess, $200 to him alone Saturday night in a $10-$20 game. Everyone else at the table respected my bets and raises (I was up $1000 at the time) but MAR.
Is there something I'm missing here? What can I do to protect myself? Any help would be GREATLY appreciated as I don't want to have to leave a good game if I can't seem to beat Mr. Auto-Raise.
Thanks in advance,
~~Stephen
First of all you got what you wanted, poker-wise, out of Mr. Auto-raise on that hand. You didn't want him out.
If the lunatic is on your left try to check-raise more when you can trap the whole field. When you want to clear the field, bet and he will help you.
I agree with M completely.
I love Mr. Auto Raise (MAR). He has been the key in my most profitable sessions. He was also key in my worst disaster sessions until I learned to play against him. When you have a player that does the same thing over and over, use it to your advantage when you can.
The good news is that if you play tight and disciplined, MAR will help you win not only a lot of his money, but a lot of the money from any other player who decides to gamble with him. Of course, a challenging aspect of playing against a maniac is that he plays premium hands the same way he plays his trash. Sometimes it seems he is just as likely to turn over trips on the river as 10-high.
I tend to try to get solid hands that fit the flop very well (wow a novel strategy!), bet into the maniac and hope the rest of the table folds, then call the maniac down if I don't have the nuts or close to it and punish him severely when I do.
If the other players call, that's OK but if they raise, make sure you have a very good handle on the situation because if you don't you will bleed chips by the rackfull.
I very, very rarely play draws in this situation, if ever. You can make a ton of money on them but you can lose a lot when your cards don't come. If another player decides to gamble with MAR and cap the first two rounds, be EXTREMELY selective of the hands you start with and ones you continue with after the flop. If I just catch a piece of the flop, I usually fold unless I am heads up with the maniac, in which case I call him down with 2nd pair or better (and sometimes any pair with a decent kicker).
My favorite type of hand to flop in this case is top pair, top kicker with nut or very high flush draw. Of course, this is a great hand at any time, but it is a fabulous money-maker in this case.
That hand is better than a flopped set of aces in the situation you describe. Blanks hit and I get paid off well, the flush hits and I get paid off EXTREMELY well by the maniac and other gamblers trying to suck out. That situation doesn't happen very often, but oh man, is it sweet when it does.
The downside is that it is not much fun to play in this type of game because you have to chuck so many hands - many of which are playable in rational situations.
As always, experience is the most valuable factor in playing in this game. I lost a ton of money playing too many draws and making bad laydowns in my first experiences in games with MAR. After I learned to play against him, it's been great.
Be careful you don't let your emotions get the best of you in these situations. MAR is usually very vocal and likes to give the needle when he wins - don't react to it. Here's a bad mistake I made once:
I am playing on a 3/6 table with MAR and I am doing OK, up about $100.
MAR and I are heads up on the turn and river, he is betting and I am calling. The board is Ad 9c 2s Th 9d and I have As Ks. MAR turns over 22 on the river for dueces full of nines. My 'favorite' situation got completely blown up. He then says to everyone:
"That's the great thing about playing like I do, you always get great action on your hands - that guy (he points to me) still doesn't know what hit him!"
'Great Action'??? We were headsup! I get pissed and say "Oh yeah, how much are you down, smart guy?" (He was down at least 2 racks)
He says "In the casino? Hell, I am up a ton of money! Last year I took $3500 I won in one day and put a down payment on my house!!"
I retorted "$3500, eh? It must be a double wide."
The entire table exploded with laughter and the guy's face turned red. He immediately tightened up and left soon after.
What an idiot I was! I had pointed out how bad he played, how much he had lost, then made him look bad to the rest of the players - and I wrecked all the action.
I should have just smiled, said "Nice hand" and let him crow on and on. I'll never know how much money I cost myself making that moron play better.
Thanks for your insightful wisdom on playing with the maniacs in low-limit sections. Good story tellin, you have anymore, as most of these threads are filled with education and wisdom to those who want to improve and excell in hold'em.
Thanks for the kind words, Robert.
Post of the year. Thanks so much for the advice. Very well written, informative and enjoyable. Printing it out right now for my archive.
it's frustrating, but i'm sure a large portion of that grand that you were up was due to MAR's donations to the field that you eventually sucked up. I think Caro's law of least tilt is particularly appropriate here, as MAR can put everyone on tilt with his actions. If you stay solid, you have the best of it against not only MAR, but against the rest of the table since they are probably not playing well either.
Come on - a guy like this is very easy tp play against. You did ok in the hand you descrobed but I would have had the last bet on each round you had top set and he has shit on the flop.
You should have kept raising him until one of you was out of chips. He got lucky on the river I'd just want him to know if he is gonna raise me I'm gonna hit him back and I have the goods when I do it.
I agree with Rounder that you could have, and probably should have, gotten even more bets on the Flop and/or Turn.
Stephan - I agree with M, 2d and Rounder.
It's impossible to protect yourself from bad beats. In your example, MAR got lucky on the river. There were four fives that could beat you and forty other cards that made you a winner. The odds were ten to one in your favor.
Even though you're going to take an occasional bad beat, it has to be profitable to have MAR in the game.
Does MAR check if you don't bet? That would be unusual. Most MARs bet when you check and raise when you bet. If MAR follows the usual pattern and bets when you check, then you can use his aggressive style to your advantage.
There are hands where you want as many players as possible in the hand and other hands where you want to limit the field. With MAR seated on your left, check the hands where you want as many players as possible in the hand - and MAR will bet for you. Bet the hands where you want to limit the field - and MAR will raise, thus making it more difficult for the following players to call.
MAR seems to fit in the loose/aggressive category. You should be able to take advantage of loose aggressive players seated on your left by using the strategy outlined above.
Buzz
1) Move and get him on your right. This is the single most important thing you can do.
2) Preflop, you'll be playing every hand for a raise, so tend to be a little tighter limping in. I am going to catch a lot of flack for this, but I firmly believe that you should many implied odds hands from your game. IE Axs, tiny pocket pairs, etc. Don't play hands that you need to see the flop cheaply with because you won't be able to.
3) This one depends on something. Has he put the table on tilt? IE are people used to the idea of seeing the flop with 6 way action, often capped preflop? If so, only play your very very best hands (Big pocket pairs, etc.) If you still can thin the field with raised, try to islolate this guy as much as possible. If he will always reraise you preflop, use this. Raise with hands that will play well heads up against him like pocket pairs, aces, etc.
4) BE PATIENT. In the long run you will make a ton of money from guys like this but it may take a while.
There are 2 guys I know who are regulars in one of my games. One of them I actually beat in showdown more than my fair share. I have made a ton from this guy. Sometimes he won't play in my game anymore.
There is another one - I can hardly EVER remember winning a hand against this guy! Probably played against him 6 times and won a total of 3 hands he was in. He is hyper aggressive and plays almost every hand, and when he goes on a heater, LOOK OUT!
The sad thing is that it seems that every night I *DON'T* play, this guy comes off a lot of chips. Every time I do play, he wins big. Eventually things will even out though - I'm not worried.
-SmoothB-
My advice: unless this guy is very wealthy, don't worry about it. If he routinely plays like that, he should be out of funds very soon. Also, if his pre-flop raises are really cutting down the field, I'd play any pocket pair, any ace, any two faces, etc. Then play showdown with him.
I agree that MAR usually goes broke and quits.
However, you can and will face him at any time because, fortunately, he is a monster with many heads.
Mr. Buckshot,
I know Mr. Auto-Raise's cousin, I call him Mr. Cappy. Boy do feel your pain, but I don't think there is any way to protect yourself from his raises. He is in auto mode remember.
What you missed was a good river card. Play your best game and play sainly, in the long run, he'll change his name to Mr. Auto-Bust.
SPM, ...defender of the right, of any player, to play any two cards, from any position.: )
I've been playing for a couple of years now. I feel comfortable in limits up to 8-16 and feel ok with 10-20.Now what i'm looking for is an "odds for dumb guys" book. Meaning, from the get go. I'm good at math, but just can't apply it to cards. Thats number one... Number 2a.. (just to show you what I mean).....What do the pot odds have to be to chase the nut flush (i.e. two of my flush cards come on the flop)...this always seems like an atomatic chase or even an automatic bet. Number 2b..What do the pot odds have to be to chase the nut straight (w/no flush or paired board). This is basic stuff but what are the numbers and where is my book for dumb guys....Thanx DANAZ
Direct odds are easy to figure out.
With a nut flush draw on the flop, 9 out of 47 unseen cards make your hand. So the odds are 4.2:1 against making your flush on the next card. On the turn, you still have 9 flush cards but with 1 more seen card (so 46) for 4.1: 1 against. In the case of an open ended straight draw you would have 8 outs instead of 9, etc.
Of course with the flush draw, if you are up against a set, you only have 7 outs because 2 of your cards would fill up your opponent. Also, you need to consider implied odds. You can sometimes call with less than the correct odds if you feel there is a good chance to make up for this lack of current odds on a later betting round(s) if you hit. There is also such a thing as reverse implied odds which are very important to be aware of.
I recommend you read "Theory of Poker" by David Sklansky for a thorough discussion on this subject plus a whole lot more invaluable information.
= Raider
With the nut flush draw, there is usually more to this story. Take a hand I played last night (but lost with). I hold Ah-Qh. The flop comes Jh-7h-2c. After a bet and a raise, I'm left heads-up with a player holding an offsuit Jc-10s. In this case, as in many others where you are drawing to the nut flush, you have your 9 suit outs PLUS your overcard outs, for a total of 15. The "math for dumb guys" says that 13 outs on the flop is about a 50-50 proposition, so with 15 outs twice, you are sitting as the favorite against top pair (note that if you only had one overcard, then you would be slightly less than even money, but still an obviously good draw).
Even sweeter is when you flop the straight AND the flush draw AND have some overcard outs (i.e., Kh-Qh with a flop of Jc-10h-2h facing an opponent with J-X). However, in that scenario, don't forget to deduct two of your duplicated outs (a straight card on each end is also a flush card). Naturally, there are various permutations to this scenario, but generally when drawing to the nut flush, don't forget to count your overcard and/or stratight outs.
Finally, if you are good enough to know the hand your opponent is playing, you can shade your analysis a bit further. Let's say, as in my case, it was obvious my opponent held a jack -- since we know that Jack isn't a heart, that's one less offsuit card in the deck that can hurt us, so instead of 47 "unseen" cards, we are looking at 46 "unseen cards".
The bottom line is that in limit poker, heads-up, knowing you are the favorite is usually more than enough "odds" information.
Dumb Odds: everything is 50:50; either it happens or not. Actually, everything is either 100% or 0%; you just don't know which.
You do NOT draw to a flush when (1) You are drawing dead (someone has a bigger flush draw) or (2) you are head's up vrs someone who will bet the turn AND there was no raise before the flop AND you cannot win if you make a pair AND you cannot bluff AND you cannot win any bets when you DO make the flush. Ditto for drawing to straights, except its not quite as good.
Unless you are clairvoyant you can never know you are in position (1) nor (2). Therefore, you have my position to ALWAYS play good flush or straight draws on the flop. The very rare times this is incorrect will only cost you pennies.
- Louie
DUMB GUY,
On the flop you almost always have odds to chase flush and straight draws so knowing the exact odds is not very important. An example of what is far more important is having a feel for the chances that a single opponent will call your bet when you semi-bluff with a draw that has no other way to win. I’ll take a player who has great feel for this but only knows that the flush draw is “about 2 to 1 against” versus a player who doesn’t seem to be able to get inside an opponents head but knows the odds of making his flush are exactly “1.86 to 1 against”.
The turn is a different story. If you are in a three-way pot with a draw and the pre flop and flop betting was light then you will often be in a situation where it will cost you too much to draw, especially if you are to getting (or about to get) jammed. Turn odds are really worth knowing.
For a lot of other situations, having good rules of thumb works well. For example, I have a pair of black eights and the pot is pretty big. The flop comes a Ks 7s 3c and there is a bet and several callers so I figure I am up against at least a king. If there are about sixteen bets in the pot when it is my turn and little chance of a raise behind I will peel one off. Now the odds of catching my set are 22.5 to 1 against but in several threads on this forum the consensus seems to be that 16 to 1 is good enough when you take into account future action and so on. So who cares that I know that what the exact odds are?
BTW, Louie’s post above is great.
Regards,
Rick
Now the odds of catching my set are 22.5 to 1 against but in several threads on this forum the consensus seems to be that 16 to 1 is good enough when you take into account future action and so on. So who cares that I know that what the exact odds are?
I'd say it's even more important to know the exact odds in this case because it is actually very close and you need all the information you can get so you don't have to rely on the "consensus". You need to get at least 7 more bets on the turn and river after you make your draw on the turn to make this worthwhile, and that's ignoring the very real possibility of being outdrawn by a flush given the number of opponents. If 2 drop out on the turn and the remaining 3 all call the river you don't have enough. It really depends critically on the number of opponents and what they will do. Knowing the odds is the easy part and you should be as accurate as you can with them. 22.5 vs 16 does not come close to describing the situation. Personally I think you are usually drawing very thin here and should throw it away.
BruceZ,
I have no significant disagreement with your post. But a baseline provides a reasonable starting point since it is impossible to make complex calculations while in the heat of poker battle. For example, the baseline assumes your pair contains one of the suit if a two flush is on board. It assumes that hitting your set is unlikely to make someone a straight. It assumes typical action after the turn. Then you make adjustments. For example, you adjust downward (i.e., you need better odds) against tight players who don't pay off on the river. The big thing is that at least I have a feel for what a close decision is.
Another example is the case where you have a three flush and a three straight on the flop but nothing else (e.g., you hold 8s 7s and flop is Ks 6h 2d). I virtually never used chase in this spot. But it turns out that an involved thread with respected posters about a year ago indicated that odds of about 13 to 1 or better (if memory serves me - believe me my loose game strategy needs a tune up) are all you need to make this call. Of course this assumes you will only pay one bet to chase and that other factors are reasonably favorable. So without the baseline, I was often passing up profit when I was getting a rather large overlay to chase.
Regards,
Rick
Yesterday was my third time playing hold 'em. I went for 9 hours, $2-4, and ended up $108 to the good. This is because after studying Holdem 'em Poker for Advanced Players for a month before I ever sat down at a table, I played my strong hands very well and won some big pots with them. I also reraised or folded when I was raised, EVERY TIME! This is because I am baffled by what seems to me as borderline decisions. My problem is that I think I laid down some good hands to early and stayed to long with hands that didn't warrant me doing so.
Sklansky and Malmuth (it seems to me) clearly describe how to play numerous types of hands on the flop and beyond from early position or first in. This is great. But how do I play these hands when I'm not first in?
Ex. I hold 99 in late position. Flop comes K73 offsuit. If there are two middle position callers, what do I do? Ex. I hold 98. Flop comes 10,7,3 offsuit. This is clearly a hand I bet if first in, But what if there is a bet and a raise before it gets to me?
I Guess what I'm trying to ask is, theoretically speaking (not considering pot odds, pre-flop play, position etc.), what kind of hand to I need to simply call a bet or a raise?
I promise I won't ask any more remedial questions.
You simply call (instead of raise) when you want to encourage overcalls behind you. You simply call (instead of raise) when you're on a slowplay. You simply call (instead of raise) when you figure that someone behind you will do the raising for you.
In the most general terms, it is usually correct to just call when: 1) the combined chances of your hand being the best or improving to a winner make you a money favorite (i.e., on average, you expect to win more money than it will cost you to continue playing the hand), and 2) raising would not improve your expectation (e.g., you need to improve and have little or no chance of driving superior hands out of the pot with a raise).
Raise-or-fold is an excellent beginning strategy for your very first decision in a hand; primarily since it bequethes you the enviable position of usually starting with the "best" hand, and secondarily because it forces you to understand that hands not worth a raise probably aren't worth a call. Obvious exceptions would be clear drawing hands like 87s when there are already a few players in.
However, once past your 1st decision there will be dead money in the pot and this money will compel you to play hands that are probably NOT the "best" hand but never-the-less worthwhile playing. These are common "calling" hands.
Having said that, there is also considerable merit for begineers to rarely raise on their 1st decision (B4 the flop) and adopt the raise-or-fold strategy ON the flop when the pot is small.
As a beginner I suggest you play less hands than 2+2 suggest, especially from early position.
- Louie
"This is because I am baffled by what seems to me as borderline decisions. My problem is that I think I laid down some good hands to early and stayed to long with hands that didn't warrant me doing so."
A common experience for new players, you'll shake it.
"I hold 99 in late position. Flop comes K73 offsuit. If there are two middle position callers, what do I do?"
Did the beter raise pre-flop ? You won't have a nice day overcalling 2 callers with 2nd pair and no draw onboard. Unless one has some GOOD reason to think one has the best hand. What do we do with the best hand ?
"I hold 98. Flop comes 10,7,3 offsuit. This is clearly a hand I bet if first in, But what if there is a bet and a raise before it gets to me?"
Now you are drawing and one has to be prepaired to work a little. With this flop things can vary depending on:
1) How many callers before you? 0-1 is Ho-Hum, 5-6 is Yum ! 2) Will it be reraised ? yes - back to #1, no - back to #1. 3) How much is in the pot compaired to what it cost to call? Meaning, know and pay attention to one's BASIC/POT odds- #1 helps again ! 4) How well is my hand disquised if/when it does become a complete five card hand, is it the nuts ? - Implied odds ! 5) Do these conditions combine well enough for one to redraw one more time to the river ? Well ?
Times up !
You have to be able to do 1-5 without hesitation. When one can process this playing 2/4, you're ready for the next step. Regardless of the current outcome ! We go through the same process each time. Some better/faster than others. Isn't this fun !
This is an honest effort to help these specific hands become more clearcut, hope it helps, or others can improve on it. Post again & Good luck !
I think adopting a policy of either raising or folding on the flop is silly. Why deprove yourself of one of the tools at your disposal?
There are lots of times when it is appropriate to just call and not raise or fold. Some examples:
1) You have AJ of spades and limp in UTG. 4 others limp behind you.
Flop comes Q52 with 2 spades, SB bets, BB folds, and it's to you. Why raise here? You don't know how many of the limpers will call 2 bets. If you raise you might knock out a couple of players that might be around to pay you off later on if you hit. Now, if you call, and three others call, and then the button raises, you can gladly make it 3 bets when it gets back to you. But until you know that you will have at least 2 other callers it is pointless to raise.
2) You limp in from middle position with 98 of spades. 2 others limp after you. BB raises and you all call. Let's say there are 4 people seeing the flop and 4BB in the pot.
Flop comes K65 rainbow with one spade. BB bets. You have odds to call for your gutshot and backdoor flush draws but most certainly would not want to raise.
3) You have 99 in mid position and the flop comes A 9 3 rainbow. No raise preflop. BB bets out, you are next to act and there are 3 calling stations left to act behind you. Why knock them out?
There are so many examples........
In general, just call when:
1) You have pot odds for a call but not for a raise.
2) Raising might knock out people that could be around to pay you off on later streets. (IE raising with a good draw and forcing everyone to call 2 bets.)
3) You want to slowplay.
4) Your bets and raises are getting too much respect, but there is a loose aggressive player left to act behind you whos bets and raises get little respect. Let him bet your big hands for you. People will call him that might otherwise fold if you bet. Of course you can always checkraise the river, etc.
There are so many. I firmly believe that checking and calling can be a powerful tool too if it is used correctly. I don't believe in checking and calling with marginal hands in small pots - IE 'taking a card off."' I think this is weak play. In that respect, I understand the 'pump it or dump it' play on the flop.
I guess the message is, don't call with a hand unless you would feel comfortable raising with it. But that doesn't mean that you HAVE to raise with it. (The obvious exception would be those hands where pot odds warrant a call but not a raise.)
-SmoothB-
Can somebody explain what this is? thanks in advance.
I believe the Kelly criterion relates to how much of your bankroll you should put at risk based on your percent advantage. For example, if you are playing in a game where your advantage is 1% then you should not bet more than 1% of your bankroll. If your advantage drops to 0.5% than you drop your bet to 0.5% of your bankroll. This may not be exactly right but I think you get the idea.
That's essentially it.
It is something that you could theoretically apply every hand to a game like 21 (if you're a card counter). For a given game, you can calculate in advance (for me at least, I sure can't calculate it on the fly) your percent advantage at a given count, and then you bet that percentage of your bankroll on that hand. So, if the count is really high, and you have a 2% edge over the house, you bet 2% of your total bankroll.
The Kelly criterion doesn't really apply to poker, because your edge changes on every card, but you can't change the size of your bets (in a limit game).
The underlying principle of the Kelly Criterion is that if you follow it in a game like 21 where you can adjust your bet size, you will maximize your odds of doubling your bankroll before going broke. Of course, since your bankroll changes after each bet, in the long run the Kelly Criterion adds up to a maximal way to increase your bankroll while reducing your chances of going broke.
The only problem with 21 is that it is very hard to play the game and not get barred if you never place a bet unless the count is favorable. Thus, you will end up making bets when the count shows the house has an edge, and thus your chances of going broke are higher than the math behind Kelly indicates.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Does this theory only apply up to some cut-off limit? Or should you really bet half you bankroll in a some game where you have a 50% edge? Seems intuitive to me, without doing any calculations (so I could easily be wrong), that a smaller bet would be in order, even if you somehow had a 50% edge in a particular game.
Also, does this theory apply if you only have a big edge for one hand/bet? Seems even more risky to bet say, 20% of your bankroll on one hand with a 20% edge (using extreme examples obviously) if you are just going to have a 1% edge after the said hand.
Yes the theory does apply in both your examples. If perfect kelly criterian is played theory suggests it is not possible to lose you bank roll, and kelly provides the optimum means to maximise profit. However optimum kelly is rarely if ever practically applicable for 2 reasons. Firstly it is not possible to exactly predict your advantage in either poker or blackjack in any given circumstance. At best one can only estimate with a degree of certainty, which provides a fundermental obstacle in the practical application of Kelly. Secondly while at the blackjack or poker tables your stake is in action and therefore continually increasing and decreasing. This implies even given a fixed advantage once must continually re-calculate bet sizes, to adjust to new bank levels, which is not easily done in the heat of battle. For these given reasons most professionals use a modified kelly. For example in bj I almost always use pre-determined betting limits roughly based on kelly, and multiply these limits by .75 to allow for various estimation errors that may occur. At the end of each session I will re-adjust these bets based on my new stake (hopefully higher). In poker however the use of kelly is limited because calculating your advantage is difficult. I usually estimate my advantage at around 5-10% and therefore risk no more than 5-10% of my bank in any one session. I hope this helps, there is plenty of good stuff on kelly in most good bj books.
I believe this was discussed before, but I can't seem to locate the thread. I'm interested in determining the difference in the real "meat" of the two books. What do they cover differently (the short descriptions read pretty much identical)? And how will each help me - which one is suited for what.
Thanks, J.
for a detailed critique of mr feeney's masterpiece look through the online archives of the columbia spectator. i know the authors of the review quite well and, as near as i can tell, they are comic geniuses. so get your reading john's book on. to the max.
scott
hey scott,
where are the online archives to the columbia spectator?
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/ would seem to be the logical place, but that page seems like a temporary front
sorry, i have no idea where the website is. i have never seen it, but i have heard it mentioned, so it must exist. you could email alex's ex-fiance, sarah ... hmmm. sarah .... it begins with a w. there it is, weintraub. sarah weintraub. email sew25@columbia.edu
tell her you are a big fan of scott's and alex's comic genius and you heard she had the good fortune of having them write for her newspaper. ask her where their masterpieces can be found on the internet.
scott
I have read the Feeney book. It is top notch.
I have not read the other book. Mason frankly admitted that while the book is good (obviously he wouldn't agree to publish it otherwise), it will not assist advanced players.
mj
I own Feeney's book, and I've only thumbed through the Schoonmaker book a couple of times in Borders, so I can't be completely objective.
Feeney -- I guess "Attention Aspiring Players: I Have Identified the Flaws That Cause You To Overrate Your Skills And Suffer EV At The Tables" was too long a title. This book is a gem. Feeney outskirts a long list of habitual errors, and gives the reader the opportunity to refine his thinking to be much more analytical. There are many sound principles to be found here. This is required reading for anyone who has ever had their emotions interfere with their play at the table. Even the most disciplined players can benefit from Feeney's analysis.
Schoonmaker -- Didn't think much of this. The book essentially looked like it was pinning psychological characteristics on groups of players based on their playing style. There are a lot of graphs that try to express quantitative information based on qualitative topics. Not to say that this book doesn't have its merits, but it did not interest me. Then again, I didn't give it much of a chance. I realize I may be quite off the mark here, but this is just an opinion based on a very brief flip-through.
My opinion of the two books is different than most of the others I have read. I liked Schoonmaker’s book better than Feeny’s.
Feeny’s is a somewhat formulaic approach to low- and mid-limit California-style card room games.
Schoonmaker provides the reader with a tool kit for systematically analyzing poker-player behavior. This can't be an easy task, and anybody attempting to systematize human behavior has my complete sympathy. Schoonmaker offers insight into what motivates player behavior, how it is manifested and how it can be exploited. Yes, the information he provides is basic to mid level, but I doubt there are limits to what might be extrapolated from his approach.
Schoonmaker is somewhat repetitive. I think this may because the book is intended to serve as a reference work. Basic information is repeated in each section so the section can be read and understood separately. (Or maybe this has something to do with the magazine articles (which I haven’t seen).)
One valid criticism that Gary Carson made on RGP was that the graphic interpretation of the player types is presented two dimensionally. Other dimensions of player behavior are covered in the book but don’t make it to the graphs. It would be fun to load multidimensional player profiles into some modern graphing software and see if anything interesting or useful resulted.
I’m a big fan of poker literature. In the past, it seems, poker books recounted how and why players acted - what made them tick: Joe got a big promotion at work today, so he’s a happy tilter. This seems to have been lost in recent decades. I think Schoonmaker may have written an important return to a neglected topic.
"Feeny’s is a somewhat formulaic approach..."
I can't really dissent here, because I don't know what you're referring to here. But the idea that it might be formulaic had never occured to me. How so?
"...to low- and mid-limit..."
Here I dissent, since I think it's aimed more specifically at middle limit play. In fact, I think much of the material can be applied better to high limit games than to low limit games, though mid limit was the target.
"...California-style card room games."
Though I play in Calif., and am not too much in touch with Vegas or many other areas, I think much/most of the material is applicable to other areas. How does it seem specifically "Californian"?
BTW, I think the Schoonmaker book is quite good for developing players. He wanted to lay out some general rules and principles, and help players assess their own play and that of others. I think he succeeded. His book is more general, while mine is more particular.
But one point for the original poster is that his is a slant on the "Psychology of poker", a specific topic. Mine is a collection of essays on assorted topics, though some main themes emerge.
J,
Check out Amazon for several reader reviews of Feeney's book. Beware though. One idiot posted two reviews.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Read both of your reviews; knew who the idiot was in advance:} Good reviews and right on target. I reread John's essays often, especially when I feel self-control slipping away.
BTW,
John's book is ranked around 61,000 on the list. Believe it or not, that's pretty high. By comparison, Randy Blasing's (friend, co-worker, and fine poet)latest book of poetry ranks 1,465,112 on the list.
Congratulations, John
Thanks. Those rankings on Amazon are quirky though. Mine bounces up and down, sometimes by hundreds of thousands of points overnight. I don't know how they work. The rankings on the Barnes and Noble site seem more stable, changing more gradually. (There I'm currently at about 53,000 :)
John
Purchased your book last weekend and have been reading it this week. Very enjoyable and helpful material. Congratulations on what I think is an excellent book.
John,
I read an article in, I believe, The New Yorker about someone who bought fairly large orders of books from Amazon simply to watch the numbers rise and fall. Wish I could remember the name of it. Anyway, we'll stick with B & N's numbers in the future then.
John
x
skp,
Browsing Amazon is a lot of fun and you should have no trouble finding it. But for you busy types, here is the direct link:
Link To Reviews of John Feeney's Book on Amazon
Regards,
Rick
Obviously we feel that both books are very good or we wouldn't have published them. However, with that being said John Feeney's book is aimed at a more sophisticated player than Alan Schoonmaker's book. But if you are a serious player, I recommend them both.
While short-term hourly rate lacks statistical significance up to several hundred hours (at the very least), can the same be said of standard deviation? In other words, if you can't infer much about how well you're playing after 100, 200, or 300 hours, can you at least determine (with any degree of accuracy) if your variance is close to reaching a long-term result?
I imagine that if this were the case, it'd be much more productive to record your results hourly, so your standard deviation would be closer to its real value.
Comments?
I have found that my standard deviation once computed over several hundred hours and thirty or more sessions changes very little (plus or minus 10%) while my hourly earn will continue to fluctuate substantially after even a 1000 hours of play in bigger games like $20-$40 and above.
Your result makes perfect sense mathematically. Let's see why:
What we're talking about is the standard deviation of our short term standard deviation, and this is called the standard error of the standard deviation. There is also a standard error of the hourly rate. The standard error of these statistics describes how far off the short term statistic is from the true value. The true value will be +/- 1 standard error from the true value 68% of the time, +/- 2 standard error 97% of the time, etc.
Now the standard error of the hourly rate turns out to be SD/sqrt(N) where SD is the true standard deviation and N is the number of hours played. The standard error of the standard deviation is sqrt(2)*SD/sqrt(N). Both values decrease at the same rate, but notice what happens if our true hourly rate is on the order of 1 bb and we want the standard error to be .1 or 10%. We would have to play 10,000 hours! And this is just to be 68% confident that our result is within 10% of the true value. Now suppose our true SD is on the order of 10 bb/hr and we want to estimate that to a standard error of 10% which is 1. Then we only need to play 200 hours.
I'm not good at math. But it occurs to me that most of the time, and maybe 100% of the time, only one hand at the table can have a positive expected value. If after the flop, every hand were turned up, and a math guy analyzed the hands by looking at the other "exposed" cards of the other hands, isn't it true that only one hand would have a positive EV given the pot size, the dead cards, and ignoring implied odds? Only one hand would be the favorite, right?
Now change the scenario a bit, and have the math guy evaluate each hand blind, or without knowing what is in each of the other hands. Is it possible that the math evaluation would give more than one hand a "false" positive EV (say where there were pot odds to draw to a 4-flush, but the draw was King high, and unbeknownst to the drawer, the next seat had the nut draw.
So to a poker player counting bets and outs on the flop, the bet-making conclusion of positive EV may be an illusion. And if so, then isn't accurately assessing your opponent's hands perhaps the most important skill, or one of them?
I'm not sure what you think you're saying when you talk about the EV of a hand after there is already money in the pot. If there's money in the pot, and that hand is not drawing dead, then it has some equity in the pot, or some +EV. Now, it will often be such that this hand's equity is less than 1 bet, so that hand should fold if bet into.
Anyway, what's your point?
I may not be using the right terms. But the "math" theory of poker seems to suggest, as I understand it, that poker is essentially a struggle to bet when odds are in your favor. I view it as the only game in the house where you can get odds in your favor, mathematically, by considering pot odds, implied odds, and outs.
But my point is, isn't that an illusion, because you don't know the other hands? And therefore solely looking at poker as a math problem (a way to get odds in your favor and to take advantage of players who play in situations where the odds are against them) may not be accurate. But that to win at poker, you must also have "people poker" skills, including some ability to accurately put your opponents on their hands and their anticipated action with those hands.
Or maybe I have no point and was just bored.
Quick example to show two hands with +EV.
P1: KK P2: QQ Board: 3579 rainbow Pot: $100 Player 1 is all-in
P2 will win if and only if the river is a Q. There is 2 Q’s left in the deck of 44 (no burn cards). The prob of drawing a Q is 2/44(4.5%). The EV of hand 2 is 2/44*100($4.55). The EV of P1 is 42/44*100($95.45).
The only time when only one hand has a positive expected value is when someone has the nuts. Assessing what is in the other player hand is important because the valuation of the hand under certainty is much better than under uncertainty. The difference between the EV under uncertainty and certainty is the price you would be willing to pay for this information. The smaller you can make your “price” and the larger your opponents “price” the greater your edge.
And how much is the next bet?
I think you may be making a little mistake. The expected value is the 'value' a hand would have, under the same conditions, over time. There can never, ever be a 'false positive' expected value if you have used all of the available information and correctly computed everything.
Let me simplify things so I don't get too confused in attempting to explain this. If I draw out four K's in seven-stud, the probability of me winning with that hand is near 100% (pot size and size of bet to put in aside). If I held 4 Kings in 1000 games, I bet you (without ever seeing your cards) that I win at least 999 of these hands and futhermore I bet I make a profit off of them, thus a positive expected value. If you beat me with a straight flush one time when I am holding that hand, it does not effect the expected value (assuming I am unaware that you have the straight flush prior to the end of play). Odds are that a superb hand is going to have a positive expected value.
That said, if I see your made Straight Flush to my 4 Kings, at that instant of calculation, my hand has a negative expected value. Again, the expected value is a function of the available information.
You suggest that if everyone knew what everyone else was holding, only one hand would have a positive expected value. Yes (if there are no more cards to draw out) and no. If there are more cards to draw out, I am pretty sure more than 1 player can have a positive expectation even given full information. Again, all that matters is that over time, the bet to stay in, relative to the amount to be won, times the probability of success as compared to the available information yields a positive outcome. I haven't crunched the numbers on this claim, so I could be wrong.
But let us not get lost in talk of the calculations. Your larger point was that reading your opponents is very valuable. Agreed. If you could read your opponents hands with 100% accuracy, you'd be a millionaire at this game (and I'd beg you to teach me how!). However, one of the foundations of poker is the fact that it is a game that relies on limited information. You have to make decisions while dealing with huge amounts of uncertainty. That is one of the beautiful and frustrating elements that makes poker what it is.
Don't confuse 'Favorite' with 'Positive EV.'
There is usually only ONE favorite (unless, for instance, two people have the same exact class and rank of hand). The Favorite is defined as the person who has the Best Chance Of Winning, and has NOTHING to do with how much money is in the pot. When all the cards are out, the Favorite will have a 100% percent chance of winning (assuming, again, that there is no split pot) if all the cards are turned up. But when there are cards to come, the favorite will usually have LESS than a 100% chance of winning.
HOWEVER, there is also, often, more than one person with a positive Expected Value (EV) in this situation. This is due to the dead money already in the pot.
The EV of a player when the cards are exposed is defined as the probability he will win (based on the card information) times the size of the pot plus future opponents' bets MINUS the probability he will lose times the total of his future bet(s). So if someone walks by a 5-10 table, puts a briefcase full of hundreds and a crate full of 2+2 books in the pot and says "Play for it boys," anyone with even a FRACTION OF AN OUT (someone who needs to catch runner-runner-runner kings to beat quad tens in 7CS for instance) will have a HIGHLY POSITIVE EV. But there will still probably be only ONE favorite.
Hope this helps!
-SDman
Bob Ciaffone wrote in a recent post that he thinks one's hourly rate can be higher in pot-limit than limit, but what about standard deviation?
In the October 20-November 2 issue of Poker Digest, on page 60, in an article titled "Losing Flushes," Brian Alspach states that 17!! = 34,459,425.
Anyone know what "!!" means?
Thanks in advance for any help here.
Buzz
I also posted this question on r.g.p.
I didn't see the article. I can tell you that in math, ! means factorial. For example, the factorial of 5 is 1*2*3*4*5=120. That doesn't seem to be what it means in this situation so I'd be curious to find out as well.
Jeff
Jeff - Thanks for responding.
The 17!! comes about as a way of determining the number of ways 18 cards can be distributed to nine different two-card hands.
Read 2d's response below to find out the meaning of the "!!" notation.
I had never seen the !! notation before reading Mr. Alspach's interesting and enlightening article.
Buzz
Not sure if this helps (couldn't help me any), but 34,459,425 = 3*3*3*5*5*7*11*13*17
That should be 3*3*3*3*5*5*7*11*13
The factors of 34,459,425 (3*3*3*3*5*5*7*11*13*17) turn out to be on the right track to figuring out what 17!! means.
If we just combine a couple of the factors as follows:
3*(3*3)*(3*5)*5*7*11*13*17 to get
3*9*15*5*7*11*13*17 and then rearrange to get
17*15*13*11*9*7*5*3, the pattern leading to understanding what 17!! means is clear.
Makes you wonder how much is out there to discover if we could just look at things a bit differently.
Anyway, thanks for your help.
Buzz
!! is a double factorial (17*15*13*11*9*7*5*3*1)
That is an explanation point you guys...get off the the wine.
Danaz - You sure know how to hurt a guy! Wine sounds fantastic - however my cardiologist says no dice to any booze for me. Ever!
What I really miss is cheese. That's also on the (rather long) list of no nos.
Buzz
2d - Thanks.
I wonder who originated the !! notation.
I got the same answer (to the number of ways 18 cards could be arranged in 9 different hands) as Mr. Alspach, but in a more cumbersome fashion.
Basically, the way I found the number of two card combinations that can be distributed from an 18 card semi-deck is as follows:
C(18,2)*C(16,2)*C(14,2)*C(12,2)*C(10,2)*C(8,2)*C(6,2)*C(4,2)*C(2,2)/(9!) = 34,459,425.
The 9! in the denominator is because the order of the two card hands is unimpoartant.
Clearly Mr. Alspach's 17!! = (17*15*13*11*9*7*5*3*1) method is much more elegant and simpler. I can see how my numbers simplify to 17!!
Anyhow, thanks again for taking the time to answer.
Buzz
You can find some great stuff on RGP once you learn how to tune out the noise. On October 16th someone started a thread called Playing Poker for a Living. Look for a long response by Ed Hill. It is an absolute gem. Oz was the first to point it out.
Regards,
Rick
What is the address for rgp? Thanks, Brian
it's linked from this site. the easiest way, for me, is to go through Deja.com, look under "Discussions" and follow the paths to Rec.Gambling.poker
Rick,
Is there a way you can make a link to the article you are refering to? Or have the specific address to look it up?
Thanks,
Carlos
go to www.deja.com or www.dejanews.com and look for newsgroup rec.gambling.poker. then look for the title of the thread and the response by ed hill.
wait a sec....
http://x63.deja.com/%5BST_rn=fs%5D/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=31&AN=682349279.1&mhitnum=24&CONTEXT=971913491.861208585
thats the url i got when i followed my directions.
brad
Hey Rick, maybe you can help me here.
On the Forum, it's easy to tell which posts I have already read and which are new.
How the heck do you do that on RGP?
Some of those threads end up having 100+ posts. If I come back to it a later time and there are 120 posts, I notice that it's not necessarily posts 101 to 120 that are the new ones.
There's probably a simple solution to this problem but truth be told, I have looked up RGP maybe only a dozen times in the last 3 years and haven't quite bothered to figure that out.
I did check out Ed's post based on your recommendation and agree that it is a good one.
I also see that the thread entitled "Sklansky and Malmuth" has about 100 posts. If those two guys ever left town, RGP may just die because that's what they predominantly do over there i.e. take shots at poker personalities and in particular S&M. On the other hand, I have to think that David sort of enjoys the spotlight given that he seems to post there more often (and more detailed posts at that) as compared to here.
Well, look at that, in this post, I am starting to sound like many RGP'ers: Zero poker content and a lot of yada yada yada. I may become an RGP'er yet:)
I don't know how it works going through some URl to get to it, but if you just use the newsgroup reading functions of netscape or outlook, those programs will automatically delete messages you have read and save the ones you have not.
I read RPG using netscape and when I've read everything I want to read I hit "mark all as read" and the next time I go to the group it will only have those messages posted since then.
Paul
skp,
Try using Forte Free Agent. It is build from the ground up for reading newsgroups. It is downladable from the site www.forteinc.com. It has a lot of features you can use to speed up things and makes RGP much more manageable.
Regards,
Rick
I've heard about rec.gambling.poker for a long time, usually associated with great players or insightful strategy.
you think they would occasionally discuss poker, as opposed to constantly getting into petty pissing contests.
regards,
Will
.
First of all, thanks to you guys who answered my other questions, it was helpful. Anyway. I going to buy Theory of Poker this weekend, but I'm afraid I don't have the groundwork needed to understand some of topics in the book. I hope you can help
1) Pot Odds. I understand that this is the ratio of the money in the pot compared to what it will cost me to continue playing, but how is this calculated. I was playing around with Turbo Hold 'em and it expressed the pot odds as 3.7-1 or 12.3-1. You obviously can't put in 7/10 of a bet. 1a) The pot odds are figured for each round, right? So is the bet I make or don't make based primarily on this specific round, and how does the money from the previous rounds figure into the equation?
2) Once I know the pot odds, how do I know what is a sound call or bet? What kind of odds do I need to call with gut shot, 3 flush, medium pair w/ an overcard, etc.? Is there abook where I can find this?
3)In HPFAP, it states that you need to be a 2-1 or 4-1 favorite to continue playing in certain situations. Are they speaking about pot odds or being a favorite over another hand? If it is being a favorite over another hand, how do I weigh this information with pot odds? Also, how do I know if I'm a dog compared to another hand?
4) Can you take me through how you good players make your decisions based on odds during a hand? i.e. when you call a bet or raise based on if you are a favorite or a dog, how the pot odds are in your favor on the flop but not on the turn etc.
I'm a golf pro and it helps my game to teach the fundamentals to beginers. Hey, I have to justify asking the stupid questions some how...
I'll take a stab at this.
1) TTH like to express the pot odds as a ratio with respect to 1. This is what they are doing. Let's say you are playing in a 10-20 game. After the flop there was $100 in the pot and three players saw the turn. The first player bet $20, then the next player has pot odds of 6:1 ($120:$20, ie. the size of the pot, plus the bettors bet, as a ratio to the amount that you have to call), and if the second player calls then the last player has pot odds of 7:1 ($140:$20). If the first player bet $20 and the second player raised it to $40 then the third player would have pot odds of $160:$40, or 4:1 (if you haven't noticed yet, I am just dividing both sides of the ratio by the right hand side to get it in the form x:1). The bet you make or don't make, is based on the round you are on but you have to factor in what your EFFECTIVE pot odds are, and any IMPLIED odds you might have. These are explained in the theory of poker. As far as money from previous rounds, that is just added up to make a total pot size. You have to remember to DISREGARD any bets that you have put in the pot and don't put in any good money chasing bad money. The money you have invested in the pot on previous rounds belongs to the pot, not to you.
2) If the pot odds are greater than the odds against you making your draw than it is a sound call. Example: You have a four flush on the turn and your opponent bets $20, the pot is $100, then you are getting 6:1 on your money for a draw where you are only a 4.11:1 underdog. You can calculate these odds (based on your number of outs) or memorize a table.
3) They are referring to being a favorite over another hand (I think, I really don't know what you are referring to exactly). If you don't know his cards, you have to estimate this, if you have seen his hand (ie. the hand is over and you are analyzing how you played it), then you can calculate how big of favorite (or underdog) you are, or simulate it on a computer (the preferred method I think).
4) You have JsTc on the button. The flop is AcKh3d. You have a gutshot (4 queens) which makes you a 10.75:1 underdog to hit your straight on the turn. If the pot contains 10 bets and it is a single bet for you to call then you are getting 11:1 pot odds and should call. But since there are two more betting rounds (the turn and river) and they have double sized bets then I would call here with a little less than 11:1 because of the implied odds I would get if I hit my gutshot on the turn. On the turn, if I missed, I would fold because now you would be getting 14:2 (10 bets for the pot, 1 for the bettor, 1 from you, and then the bettor makes a double size bet for you to call on the turn, giving you 14:2 pot odds) for a 10.5:1 shot.
I hope this helps.
Here is simple way to calculate the probability of making a hand and the odds of making a hand.
With one card to come:
9 outs -> Probaility is 9/46. 9 cards help you, and there are 46 unseen cards. 52 minus 2 in your hand, minus 3 on the flop minus 1 on the turn leaves 46 cards.
The odds of making a hand is simply the ratio of good cards to bad ones. If you have nine outs with one card to come, then the odds of making your draw are 37:9 against you. 46 unseen cards minus the nine good ones, leaves 37 bad cards.
With two cards to come it is more tricky. To calculate the chance of making a hand based on the number of outs (this is different than calculating the chance of you winning or not) I like to calculate the probability of not making your hand, and then subtracting this from one.
For instance, with 9 outs on the flop the probability of making your hand is 1-(38/47)*(37/46) = 0.35. I then convert this to odds by (1-0.35):0.35, or 65:35, and this reduces to 1.86:1 against.
Thank you for your answers, that is exactly what I was looking for.
I find the classic approach, as explained by Mark Dodd, a bit cumbersome. See Theory of Sucking Out for a slightly different approach to accomplish the same thing.
-Abdul
Marky wouldn't you odds in the holdem game mentioned above be 11.50 to 1. There are 46 cards in the deck and 4 can help, that should equal the 11.5, correct. Just asking no disrespect.
Not quite. There are 46 cards in the deck and 4 that help you. That means you are a 42:4 underdog to make your hand. This equals 10.5:1 against you. 4/46 is the probability of making your hand.
You said,
I [was] going to buy Theory of Poker this weekend, but I'm afraid I don't have the groundwork needed to understand some of [the] topics in the book.
It looks like you're ready for Theory of Poker. The groundwork you seek is laid out well there. Your questions are also answered there.
(I'm not discouraging anyone from answering your questions here, though.)
A little while ago I got thinking about how to calculate expectation. I derived a formula to calculate it and posted it on here to see if I was on the right track. Abdul Jalib straightened me out, gave me the general formula for expectation value and since then I am much better off. I'd like to thank Abdul for the time he spent on helping me out and I'd like to share something that I was recently able to figure out for the first time because I was able to calculate expectation value.
Here's what I am thinking about. On page 71 of The Theory of Poker David Sklansky writes, "But even when your is the best hand, you generally prefer your opponent to fold rather than call when the pot is large. The reason is that when you bet in a limit game and the pot is large, your opponent's hand, though not best, is rarely so much of an underdog that he is not getting good enough odds to chase you. Hence, him calling you with good odds is a profitable play for him in the long run. Since he is correct to take the odds, you do not gain when he calls. When he calls, you lose even if you happen to win that particular pot; for over the long run his call has positive expectation. It will end up costing you money."
I never used to understand this statement (to be honest, I just got TOP a little while ago, but I had read other authors in the past and they say the same thing, I assume they took it from the TOP). I didn't understand how your opponent calling could cost you money. You still win the same percentage of pots whether he calls you or not. Well, I recent did the math and here it is. Here is an example clearly illustrating what I assumed to be correct, but did not fully understand. I realize that this is a pretty fundamental concept and that most people will fully understand this, but some of you may not so I hope this helps. If not, it helped me so that is good enough.
Your Hand: As Ks
Opponent's Hand: 6h 7h
Board: Ah Kh 3s 2c
Case 1: It is a 20-40 game. Pot is $200 and you bet $40. Your opponent folds every time. You have a net expectation value of +$200.
Case 2: It is a 20-40 game. Pot is $200 and you bet $40. Your opponent calls every time, putting himself all in (thus allowing us to neglect implied odds).
Case 2a: Opponent makes flush on river.
Case 2b: Opponent doesn't make flush on river.
EVopp = P2a*V2a + P2b*V2b
P2a = 9/44, P2b = 1 - P2a, V2a = $240, V2b = -$40.
EVopp = +$25.45.
What is your EV?
EVhero = P2a*V2ah + P2h*V2bh
V2ah = -$40, V2bh = $240.
EVhero = +$174.55.
Therefore your EV has gone down because your opponent has made the correct call, just as David Sklansky has told us. Now what happens if this is a pot limit game and you are able to bet $200?
Case 3: It is a pot limit game. Pot is $200 and you bet $200. You opponent calls every time, putting himself all in (thus allowing us to neglect implied odds).
Case 3a: Opponent makes flush on river.
Case 3b: Opponent doesn't make flush on river.
EVopp = P3a*V3a + P3b*V3b
P3a = 9/44, P3b = 1 - P3a, V3a = $400, V3b = -$200.
EVopp = -$77.27.
What is your EV?
EVhero = P3a*V3ah + P3h*V3bh
V3ah = -$200, V3bh = $400.
EVhero = +$277.27.
So I see clearly now. Anytime your opponent makes a play with +ve expectation you lose. Anytime your opponent makes a play with -ve expectation you gain. Although, in both cases you still GAIN, you just gain less when your opponent is making a +ve expectation play, and you gain more when he is making a -ve expectation play.
I think you hit on something "fundamental" here.
I knew how it worked intuitively, but I had never seen the math and I was able to calculate this for the first time recently. I thought someone might find it useful. Sorry for wasting your time.
Mark,
I think your post was great. I think David was complimenting you.
Regards,
Rick
I wasn't sure, but I was afraid he was complimenting me and that I looked like an *ss because I jumped the gun on my reply. I'd rather not offend a man who has done so much for so many of us.
Well, I'm not too big of man to admit when I make a mistake, so I apologize to David Sklanksy.
I think you need to re-work Case 2. Specifically, your opponent's EV is:
(9/44)*($240) + (35/44)*(-$40)= $49.09 - $31.82 which is + $17.27 NOT + $25.45 as you state.
Your EV is:
(9/44)*(-$40) + (35/44)*(+$240) = -$8.18 + $190.91 which is +182.73 NOT +$174.55 as you state.
Now suppose you don't bet at all and just give your opponent a free card? How does that affect your EV? Let us assume that he does not bet but takes a free card. Further assume that if the flush card comes he always bets and you always make the crying call and he folds if he misses the flush. Then your EV is:
(35/44)*(+$200) + (9/44)(-$40) = $159.09 - $8.18 which is only +$150.91.
So your EV plummets the most dramatically when you fail to bet the best hand. Therefore, the whole argument about whether or not you want your opponent to call your bet is not nearly as important as realizing that YOU MUST BET THE BEST HAND REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR OPPONENT DECIDES TO DO!!!!!!! The argument that says you should avoid betting because your opponent is getting correct odds to call is spurious.
What does everyone else think?
Yah, I must have made a simple math error. I was going to calculate the case of you not betting to see what happens to your EV but I never got around to it. After seeing your result I must say that it is imperative to bet the best hand since it costs you money not to.
Jim,
Of course your math is correct and as to Mark's comment about whether this is too fundamental, well, I don't think this stuff is posted often enough. Perhaps these formulae should be a part of the left side of the forum like the quadratic equation is posted in the index of any high school math book.
Another idea along these lines is a point brought up by Andrew Prock several months ago. It addressed the situation of our hero sitting with AdAs and the board has Ah Ac Qh 6c. Our hero after betting the turn WANTS the opponent to fold rather than call even if there is only one card (A heart honor) left that can come to beat him. In this situation it doesn't matter whether or not the opponent's call is correct it's a matter of winning the pot all the time or losing once out of every 46 times. Is this correct?
Sammy,
"our hero sitting with AdAs and the board has Ah Ac Qh 6c. Our hero after betting the turn WANTS the opponent to fold..."
I am sensing an error in this statement.
KJS
.
I believe it depends upon how large the pot is. If the pot is very small then I would think he would want his opponent to call every time since his chances of losing are only 1 in 46 (actually 1 in 44 if you consider the opponent's two cards). On the other hand, if the pot is very large then he may prefer his opponent to fold when he bets. It is rare for a pot to be so large that you would not want your opponent to call you and play his 1 outer.
But again, the point about whether or not you want your opponent to call or fold is really moot since you should always bet the best hand in these situations regardless.
At that point, you MAKE THOUSANDS if your opponent hits. Bad beat jackpot.
Mark,
DS was complimenting you. He's the cheapest professional I know that is one of the best in his field. He charges less than John Daly in golf, only $10K a week for solving collusion problems, $2-500 an hour for lessons. And free advice here for nothing!!
Paul
I understand the fundamentals behind wanting your opponant to fold, just don't understand the equations abbrvs. could you elaborate.Thanks
I think the comment about you hitting upon something fundamental meant you have hit upon a version of the fundamental theorem of poker.
" WHen your opponent plays as if he could see your cards you lose, and if plays in a way that he wouldn't if he could see your cards you gain. "
Your calcuation reinforces this, when he calls correctly you lose some $, and if he folds incorrectly you gain.
Let's not forget that while you gain 100% of the time when a head's up opponent makes a bad bet,fold or call, in multiway pots an opponent's wrong decision can cost you money when a disproportionate benifit of that wrong decision goes to other players involved in the pot(Morton's Theorem).
Once in a while, you just keep getting bad cards. I understand that cards are random, so obviously that could happen. I just don't know how to play when cards are bad.
Should you...
a) play a little more hands otherwise you'll end up loosing all your money by paying blinds/antes.
b) play like usual since you keep getting bad cards for the last X hours doesn't mean you'll get bad cards for the next hand.
c) go home. It's just a bad day. The more you play, the more you lose. Or you'll get frustrated and go on tilt.
d) other opinions.
Thank you for your comments.
Soh
This may not be what you want to hear. It is certainly possible for cards to _have_ run cold over the previous hour or two or whatever, but this has no bearing on the cards you are _about to_ receive. Note to anyone and everyone : I'm not even prepared to discuss any disagreements with the previous statement.
However, you should always adjust your play according to how your opponents perceive you at the present time. If you have played few hands because of the cards you have received, you have a tight image which you may be able to exploit. If your opponents think you are on tilt, then exploit this accordingly. And if your run of cards has made you frustrated then it might be best to leave, not because of the bad cards per se but just because you are not playing your A game for psychological reasons.
Andy.
When I've been catching such poor cards that I haven't made anything but forced bets for a long time, I somtimes make a pure bluff to take advantage of the tight image I've created. If it works, I've won a pot. If it doesn't, I'm more likely to get paid off when I finally get a hand. Do any of you more experienced players see a flaw in this tactic?
Hello,
In regards to your choices, I would not choose a, playing more hands, unless conditions at the table called for playing more hands.
I think b is a good choice.
I would choose c if your attitude had deteriorated beyond repair.
b is probably the best overall choice. You need to develop the patience and discipline to sit through runs like these and the only way to do that is through experience.
Dealing with runs of bad cards has been an expensive lesson for me. Trying to force wins out of bad cards is a very bad idea. Trying to force wins when I finally got good cards was even worse.
If the cards are running bad and I am starting to get mad or frustrated, I try to take more breaks. If I find myself looking down, seeing 94o and pitching them in disgust, I know I am in danger of going on tilt and I take a walk or something. Getting outside and walking around helps me a lot.
I don't take breaks because I am "Waiting for the bad cards to end", I take breaks because my mindset is bad and even if I get good cards in that frame of mind, I will probably play them poorly.
Another thing that has helped me is adding up the money I save not making loose calls.
These runs are also a great time to work on other skills, like observing other players' tendencies, working on reading people, and keeping track of pot size.
You will find the more bad runs you play through, the easier they are to deal with. I am noticing that what I considered a "horrible run of cards" when I first started playing is barely a bump in the road now.
when driving down the street and you seem to catch a bunch more red lights than usual do you:
a: drive thru them and drive faster
b: drive as usual
c: turn around and go home its a bad day
nt
The correct way is to continue to play only hands you would normally play, you do have to take into consideration how you are viewed at the table, but you play should always have a variance in it. Observant players at the table will notice if you have not won a pot for a while, or even played, so always vary your play. A run of bad cards can easily change to a run of great cards, so continue with only normally playable hands. If for any reason you play on tilt, not only are you playing poorer hands, but also not in the right state of mind which compounds the problem. Remember good things come to those who wait so stay focused on the task at hand.
i drive through them, but i take poker more seriously than driving.
scott
I get mad, pound the steering wheel while I wait, spin my wheels when the light turns green, then cut off the guy in the other lane.
Hehehe.
First of all, you must understand an important point - the is no such thing as running hot or running cold.
Of course, AFTER the fact you can say 'I WAS running hot' or 'I WAS running cold.' But you can never say at any point - 'Gee, I am running cold right now, I should change my strategy.'
Cards are cards. They have no memory how how well or badly they have treated you over the last 3 hours, weeks, or months. Every new deal is independent of the last.
That having been said, it is important to ALWAYS play your best game at ALL times. Always make the best play you can. Now, the best play may not necessarily be the same - it is a function of cards, lineup, etc. But it is also a function of the way the others percieve you.
For example, if you have been catching cards, other people who are not as smart as you might THINK that you are 'on a heater' and may be more likely to lay a hand down. If you are against opponents like that, you might be able to get away with being a bit more aggressive. Your bluffs may also work at a higher rate. These people are superstitious - they have seen to turn over big hands and, since THEY believe in heaters, may assume that you will continue to do so.
On the other hand, if you have been losing, people may be LESS afraid of you. Your bluffs will not be as successful. People may think that you are in tilt or steaming. Also, they have seen other people draw out on you and, since they are superstitious, may be more inclined to call you because they believe you have been unlucky and will continue to be so.
If you are against these types of opponents, you should alter your play accordingly to take full advantage of your image. If you are against smart opponents, you should play the same regardless of losses/wins.
-SmoothB-
In the movie "The Hustler," during the early challenge match between Paul Newman's character Fast Eddie, and Jackie Gleason's character Minnesota Fats, Fast Eddie is kicking the crap out of Fats. They play for hours and hours, and Fast Eddie is way ahead by morning. Fats takes a break, changes his shirt, washes his face and hands, and comes out looking like a million bucks, and takes Fast Eddie down in the hours that follow.
I've done this before (though not after all night). After 2 or 3 hours of play, when things are running bad, I 1) change tables 2) literally go wash my face and run some cold water through my hair (not much of it is there) 3) remind myself of the goals for the session tonight that I had set on my drive out, and 4) think of my bankroll for the evening as just starting out, wherever I am at that moment. I'm not up or down.
It helps me.
This post is heading toward superstitions. Sure they are nothing but hogwash, but a lot of times that's all it takes to change the tide. Being Chinese, I've been around a lot of traditions and superstitions. When I'm playing, DO NOT pat me on the shoulder. If you do, chances are I'll actually leave the table. If you don't believe me, go up to almost any Chinese player and try it, see if he doesn't swear at you.
Think of something silly that you do to "ward off the spirits", even if it makes no sense. Sometimes I like to find another chair. Some people walk around the table. You'd be surprised that every once in a while you'll find yourself raking in chips.
My "Hustler" comment wasn't about superstition, but mental rejuvination.
you can believe in that all you want as long as you make the right play based on facts and not superstitions. if you let them make any real changes you will go broke as poker and gambling offers only small edges which mount up and you cannot afford to deviate too much.
What's next? Feng Shui Poker for the Advanced Player?
Funny you should say that, because a lot of the casinos in Asia are built in conjunction with discussions with Feng Shui experts. Hey I don't believe in it neither, but convince them.
MGM Grand, The Rio, the Bellagio, and at least a dozen other Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos do the same but I don't think it's nescessariy because they believe in it. Let's face it, the Asian market is a huge one and as they say, "The customer is always right". Feng Shui is more like a marketing ploy, as opposed to a superstitious belief, from the casinos' perspective. Yes, Steve Wynn and Donald Trump use Feng Shui experts but I don't think they sincerely trust them.
If you are discouraged then go home.
For psycologically reasons you should probably play slightely LESS hands when you are losing.
If the opponents notice that you haven't played a hand for a while then be tempted to make a steal. Don't do this against regulars who KNOW you will fire-it-up after a string of folds.
Forget all the above. Consider long streaks of bad cards like a mid-term exam in Professional Poker Playing 101: those with the discipline to play each one well (i.e. fold) pass the test, those without the discipline fail.
Know that these and other mid-term exams come randomly.
- Louie
Any suggestions as to where to get them?
David
I'm interested too. Are there any distributors in Canada? I know about the Gambler's Bookstore in Reno but I wonder if there's anywhere cheaper.
Call Binions gift shop I'd skip the 1999 one and get the one discovery did.
What about the old ones that used to be on ESPN? I'd like to have some of those where you actually see the cards they are playing.
Last time I was in the gift shop they had all the old tapes for sale and I know they will ship them for a fee.
Try this number it is for "gamblers world" Tempe Az.
480-968-2590
I bought mine at www.conjelco.com last summer.
You can obtain the '93, '94, '95, '97 and '98 videos at $15 each from www.conjelco.com. In my experience, Conjelco is very reputable. I completely trust them.
Tapes can also be ordered from www.gamblersbook.com. These folks also are very reputable.
Over the phone early today I was discussing with a friend of mine stop losses. I told him that in the long term stop losses are useless because it is the sum of your EVs that will ultimately determine whether you will make money or not. He agreed but said that according to an article in the latest issue of CardPlayer -or was it Poker Digest? I am not sure which- a writer explained that a stop loss is indeed useful. However, it is but only useful under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I get both magazines late by a few weeks where I come from so everything I was hearing was filtered thru the biases of mind friend who by the way has always believed in stop losses . But my friend was very convincing in his reasoning. Basically, it came down to that you should use stop losses when you are playing over your head for whatever reason. I have been brought up in the belief that stop losses are totally useless. But I have also been brought up with the belief that I should be openminded about other peoples ideas. So my question to you two plus two posters is, When if ever is a stop loss useful in poker?
A stop loss is useful under the following circumstances:
1) You are losing because the game is too tough for you.
2) You tend to go on tilt after losing a certain amount.
3) The type of game, even though profitiable, does not suit you. IE the game is a real rammer jammer, but you do not play well in this kind of game.
4) You can't afford to lose more than you already have. (If this is the case you should not have been in the game in the first place.)
5) You aren't playing well for whatever reason and can expect to continue losing.
Other than that, if the game is good and you are playing well, and you can afford the losses, you should not leave even if you are losing. Short term luck has made you a loser but you can expect to win in the long run.
-SmoothB-
Another thing that my friend talked about is that according to the Poker Digest(?)/CardPlayer(?) article there are something like 6 to 8 kinds of stop losses. Can you or any one please elaborate?
I used two kinds. When winning I sometimes use a "blow back" plan. Nothing original I'm sure. If I'm up, say, three racks at $20-40, and it feels like it's time to call it a day, I'll put myself on a one-rack-maximum-blow-back-plan meaning that if I ever find myself $500 under my top spot for the day, I quit. Sometimes I pile up huge wins, playing a long session, staying true to the plan all the way. I think I play tighter before the flop once the blow-back plan kicks in.
I agree with Mason's concerns about stop-losses causing poor play. I don't think that happens with me, but its hard to gauge because a negative effect may indeed infect my game, but so slightly that it is not measureable or noticable.
I like to think that whatever negative results exist are compensated by the positive effect of locking up a good win and guarenteeing that my orange juice tastes sweet in the morning, instead of risking the sour taste of having blown a good day. Basically, I dread that feeling from days gone by, so I simply don't do it anymore. That's one reason I use this stop-loss.
The other stop-loss I use is when losing. Two racks and two stacks is my limit in any limit game. And the last two stacks are there only so I don't go all in. I often quit stuck with about a stack or less still on the table. This would be an absurd strategy in a casino where the 'good' games are far better than the 'bad' games. Around here the games are consistent and 24 hours. So this stop-loss while losing is like a luxury. The game will be there after I recharge, and reload!
Tommy
I would even question some of the above. I do agree that for emotional reasons a stop loss may help some players. But there is also a major problem. It is will you begin to change your strategy for the worse because your stop loss is coming? For example, suppose you have very little money left and the blinds are coming up, do you now play an inferior hand in an early position because of the impending stop loss?. (Notice that this is a concern that tournament players have all the time.)
Are you saying that a stop loss will turn you into a tourney player even though you are in a live game? How bad is this?
I'm saying that stop losses are in some cases worse than worthless because they can affect your strategy in other ways.
I agree that crossing the street can be helpful sometimes. But there is a major problem. What if while crossing the street you give in to a sudden uncontrollable urge to lay down? Then a car might not see you. Splat.
I agree that a fork can be helpful in eating. But what if you suddenly get an uncontrollable urge to jam the fork into your eye? Splat. Then you might not see the approaching car when you decide to lay down in the middle of the street.
-Abdul
For this post a "stop loss" is a fixed $ limit that you decide ahead of time is the maximum you will risk in a given game or a day. If I bring $1000 planning to play 10/20 and will not use a credit or debit card, then I have set myself a $1000 stop loss for the day.
The authors are correct that one SHOULD not need a stop loss: choosing to (continue to) play in a game should be based on how you feel, whether the game is good, your expected EV yaddy yaddy. That's correct. However, its true that most of us DO need a stop loss since we are actual human beings that do not have perfect control or perfect ability to evaluate the situation. That means there will be times we will be playing either well below our abilities or well over our head AND DON'T REALIZE IT.
If I lose $1000 in a 10/20 there is just too much chance that my play is abysmal today and its time to go home since I'm such a big underdog; even if I don't know why.
While there is difficulty in determining how much to bring, I will say that one should bring LESS than the amount that if lost, will be some sort of "disaster" whatever that means for you. If losing $1000 will demorilize you so much you will want to skip your next couple sessions, then bring less than $1000. If losing $600 is a disaster than the 10/20 is too high a limit to play; this psycological limit may very well be lower than your skill limit.
Skrewy-ism: One gets from "is" to "should" by accepting "is" and acknowledging "should"; not by ignoring "is".
- Louie
I've recently become a convert of the idea that game selection is the most important strategic decision one can make. But I'm interested in practical advice on how to do this more effectively. Two separate issues have been in my thoughts:
1) the "How To" mechanics of choosing a good game in a poker room. I play at a casino that has about 30 low limit hold-em game tables going when they are busy (3-6, 4-8, 6-12). I've played at all kinds of games there, but sometimes the board is huge and I have trouble getting in any game, let alone chosing the best game. Usually I get on the board for all three games when I get there, then spend the time waiting for a table to scout around and make a mental list of games that look pretty good. When I'm finally seated, if the game looks good to me, then I usually waive off my seats at the other limits (I don't care if the game is 3-6, 4-8, or 6-12, a good game is a good game at those limits, and not always easy to find). But the problem comes if the game is not a good game. I usually wander around between folding hands, or will often sit out a hand or two just before the blinds, and look for other games with action, and ask for a table change to the better looking games if I spot one. I also ask friends who are dealers what games look loose and full of action.
But the reality is, I'm choosing games based on very very little info, and actually moving games is a big pain. I may see only two or three hands at that table, and is that enough to conclude that a game is a good game?
Issue 2) (do I sound like McLauglin?) How to spot a good game? I have played in good games, but sometimes I don't really realize how bad the other players are and how they will make bad bets/calls until I've played at the table for a while, and have seen them play numerous hands. In choosing what looks like a "good" table, I rarely have the chance to evaluate whether a specific player played too loosely for the situation. Rather, I usually just go on the number of players in the hand after the flop (5 or more is a good thing), and the size of the pot (more than 3 calling a raised pre-flop is good, 5 or more is great).
Anyone have other ideas on 1) the "practical steps" to scout tables and 2) what to look for to spot a good table?
Yes, the single most important decision is which game you will play. How-to-play-a-hand decisions are no-where near as important but they come up a LOT more often. The next most important is seat selection but I digress...
If the game you are in isn't worth it then ask for a change right away: a random game is probably better AND you get ahead of the list of the other game-changers. You can always turn it down if you learn more about the other game.
I am particularly adept at spotting good game; but my success is for nebulous subjective reasons: mostly I spot live ones at a glance. Actually, I spot their invisible "Take my money" neon signs above their heads at a glance.
But lets stay objective. You need to make mental notes of individual fish so you recognize them next time. It's darn-near impossible for a game featuring 2 known fish to be a bad one. If you see 2 known sharks in a game ... I'll leave the rest of that sentance as an excercise.
If you glance at a game ONCE and see many players and a big pot then that game is MUCH more likely to feature many players and big pots. Likewise if you glance at a game once and see the cut-off bet-and-take-it against the blind on the flop then that game is MUCH more likely to regularly feature few players and small pots.
I would say if you make 2 separate but similar observations about a game then peg that game to be routinely like your observations.
Your limited opportunities to size up games is plenty to make meaningful conclusions. Go for it.
- Louie
Are computer programs good indicators of possible results?
I read poker books. I read computer books. I use poker computer programs. I play poker. I program computers.
My favorite authors (Sklansky & Malmuth) have used computer simulations for research and analysis. The programs I use (both Turbo and AceSpade) simulate live play. I know you can't put too much credence in your results in the program versus your results in the real world. Also, this is not a discussion of pros and cons of using poker computer programs. I feel they are good tools for learning just like books.
However, knowing their limitations, are they at least a decent indicator. More specifically, I bought the Turbo No-Limit Holdem Tournament program because I did not know how to play no limit. Once I started using it with the player setting on 'Toughest', the light bulb in my head turned on, I played in a few no limit tournaments and I felt very confident in my play. My results in the program after 200 no-limit tournaments was much better than my results after 200 limit tournaments. Consequently, if the program is a decent indicator, I should only play no-limit holdem instead of limit holdem.
In David Sklansky's "Poker, Gaming, and Life" essay, 'Is Your Wallet Fat Enough for Tournaments?', he used a simulation of winning 1 in a 100 tournaments, 1 in a 150 and concluded "that great players need about 55 buy-ins and the very good players need about 130 buy-ins to feel fairly safe." His test case had 1000 players play 1000 tournaments each. If I played 1000 simulated tournaments and the results were positive, should I believe this indicator (knowing full well that my actual mileage may vary)?
The other program I use is AceSpade's Seven Card Stud Pro. My local casino only offers 1-4 7CS Hi/Lo. I want to know how to play "Real Stud" someday so I am reading and rereading S&M's 7CSFAP and using AceSpade's 7CSPro to reinforce my learning. I like the statistics it keeps and especially the chart. It is a great visual tool to see how you are doing. I started with "Little Stud" and set it for 5-10 limit. Within 40 hours of play I was positive. I just started to use it and do not have enough data yet, but could not help but think if this program was a decent indicator. If I "played" stud at this level for 1000 hours and the results were positive, would this be a good indicator of possible results?
Has anyone else used computer programs, had good results, and then successfully implemented your plan armed with these tools?
Thanks for your input. Keith O
>>I read poker books. I read computer books. I use poker computer programs. >>I play poker. I program computers.
If you have enough time and talent, I think you might give programming poker a shot.
Whether you end up with a good program or not almost doesn’t matter.
It’s the best way to learn where the bodies are buried.
True, but you do need a _lot_ of spare time.
Andy.
The poker software is a good start. It is a good way to learn some stuff. If you cannot beat the toughest lineups (as well as some mixed lineups with a variety of different styles), then you cannot beat live poker.
However, do NOT figure that your ability to beat the computer players means you can beat a live game. There are many people who can beat the computer and still lose at the casino. However, for the price and the risk level, practicing against the computer is a good way to learn.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
"However, do NOT figure that your ability to beat the computer players means you can beat a live game. "
I not sure if you understand what I am asking. I am beating the no-limit tournament on the computer. I do NOT expect that I will beat the live no-limit tournaments simply because of this. I am asking whether the results in the computer simulation are indicative of possible results.
For example, with stock trading there are many indicators to read in order to determine when to buy or sell. If you simply buy stocks when the Bollinger Bands or Stochastic indicators are positive, it does NOT guarantee that you will make a profit. But they are tools that are indicative of when the environment is favorable and your possible results could be profitable.
Therefore, my simulated results, which are hundreds of tournaments that would take years to acually play, indicate that my results would be better with no-limit that with limit. So the question is: can I believe this as an indicator of possible results? Has anyone else experienced a relationship between their results and what was indicated by computer results?
Thanks, Keith O
Anything is possible, right?
In my experience, and based upon what I've heard from many others, the fact that you are doing well against the computer is NOT an indication that you will do well against live opponents. However, the fact that you are not able to beat the computer IS strongly indicative that you will not be able to beat live opponents.
Or, are you asking, is the fact that you do better in NL vs. limit on the computer mean that you'll do better in NL vs. limit in real life? If it is, my reply is I don't know. However, my strong guess is that this does not mean much, if anything.
.
Anything is possible, right?
In my experience, and based upon what I've heard from many others, the fact that you are doing well against the computer is NOT an indication that you will do well against live opponents. However, the fact that you are not able to beat the computer IS strongly indicative that you will not be able to beat live opponents.
Or, are you asking, is the fact that you do better in NL vs. limit on the computer mean that you'll do better in NL vs. limit in real life? If it is, my reply is I don't know. However, my strong guess is that this does not mean much, if anything. Computers are very bad, IME, at playing NL. In limit or NL they are easy to read. Putting someone one a hand is more important in NL than in limit, so the fact that computers are bad at this matters.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Or, are you asking, is the fact that you do better in NL vs. limit on the computer mean that you'll do better in NL vs. limit in real life? If it is, my reply is I don't know. However, my strong guess is that this does not mean much, if anything. Computers are very bad, IME, at playing NL. In limit or NL they are easy to read. Putting someone one a hand is more important in NL than in limit, so the fact that computers are bad at this matters. "
Yes, this is what I was getting at. This makes sense because the program does funny things you would not see in live play, such as, when you are the short stack at the final table and call in early position, sometimes no player will put you all in. However, I have seen it reraise and bluff in certain situations correctly. When I realized that it was executing these responses based on a table of 'correct' results, I could figure when it was bluffing or being overly aggressive. Compared to live play, some players would not reraise when they should and you may not be able to tell when they are bluffing. But overall, the program is good training for what is generally correct play and lots of live players do not have a clue.
-Keith O
Particularly in the NL tourneys, most players don't know the proper hands to play from each position. You can efficiently learn and practice this with a program and the help of a good book. This in itself will make you better than 70-80% of the tournament players. The rest you have to learn at the table. Being grounded in the fundamentals will allow you to open up your game in those spots where a theoretically wild or erratic play might best be called for. You can't win a tourney knowing only what a book or program teaches you, but you can establish a solid baseline to work from.
Okay I'm stealing a post Jim made on RPG and reposting part of it here with a question.
In reply to a $5-$10 player asking how many hours he needed to play to know if he was a winning player Jim responded: [some stuff deleted so as to focus on my question]
"Suppose your standard deviation is $100 per hour in this game. At the end of 400 hours your cumulative standard deviation would be about $2000 ($100 x square root of 400). So the uncertainity associated with your win rate would be about $5 per hour ($2000/400 hrs) or one small bet per hour."
What I want to know is how to mathematically interpret this "uncertainty." Is this essentially a confidence interval around your per hour average? If so at what confidence? Would you be saying that you are 95% sure that your real average is X + or - Y where Y = uncertainty score (Cumulative standard deviation/total hours played)? I would guess that the degree of confidence (95%, 99%, 60%, etc) would be a function of the number of hours played. How could that be calculated?
I have not been looking at cumulative standard deviation up until now out of ignorance over how to interpret it. If it can be used to accurately predict the interval around your avg/hr then I think it would be quite usefull.
Do I have this stuff right?
Thanks in advance and Jim I hope you don't mind my posting this here without asking first.
Paul Talbot
I should let Jim answer for Jim, but I've reached maximum boredum... Besides I wanted to add my spin.
Is this essentially a confidence interval around your per hour average? If so at what confidence?
Yes, it is a confidence interval with confidence 68%. This means that you would expect to fall in this range 68% of the time if your true hourly rate were equal to your average hourly rate. You would fall in the interval twice as large 97% of the time.
I would guess that the degree of confidence (95%, 99%, 60%, etc) would be a function of the number of hours played. How could that be calculated?
The degree of confidence for this interval is always 68% regardless of the number of hours played. What depends on the number of hours is the size of the interval. This is SD/sqrt(N) where SD is the true standard deviation and N is the number of hours played. Note that this gives Jim's result directly without having to figure the cumulative SD and then divide by the number of hours. That's just because SD*sqrt(N)/N = SD/sqrt(N).
This value by the way is called the standard error of the hourly rate (or standard error of the mean) and should not be confused with the hourly SD. The hourly SD is always the same ($100 per hour in Jim's example). The standard error becomes tighter the more hours we play. There is also a standard error of the SD for estimating the accuracy of your SD which works the same way only the formula for this is sqrt(2)*SD/sqrt(N).
Thank you very much BruceZ!
A confidence of 68% though doesn't exactly inspire confidence!
Is there a way to calculate an interval around your hourly rate with greater confidence? If you are 68% sure that your average is plus or minus Y around X then surely there must be some way to widen the interval and gain confidence.
You can widen the interval to any confidence you want. We already said +/- 2 standard errors is 97%. 1.65 is 95%. 1.55 is 90%.
For other confidences you have to learn how to read a table of the standard normal distribution which you can find in various places on the web or in any statistics book. They can be tricky to read if you're not used to them because there are different versions which tabulate different things. Basically these tables all give you areas under the bell curve for a distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation of 1. What you want to know is the area from -x to +x where x is some number of standard errors, and the area from the table represents the confidence. Some tables give the areas from 0 to +x in which case you would have to double the result. Some give the areas from -infinity to x in which case you would have to double this and subtract 1 to get the value you want (basically you are subracting the areas of both tails from 1 to get the area from -x to x).
For example, if you look up the value of 1 you will see about .34 in the first type of table which you double to get .68 or 68%. In the second type of table you will see .84 from which you would then compute 2(.84)-1 = .68.
Conversely of course you can hunt through the table to find a confidence you are interested in, and read the table the other way to get the size of the confidence interval.
Just be sure always to bear in mind what we mean by this mathematical definition of confidence. It is the probability that that our average would fall in this range after N hours IF our true hourly rate were indeed what we have estimated. It means no more nor less than this, and may not be exactly the same as your intuitive notion of confidence. Never say that this is the probability of your hourly rate being in this range which would mean something completely different (and which is something not computable from your data). I have even seen authoritative sources which have this error.
Thank you BruceZ.
So if I want a 95% confidence interval I would calculate a new cumulative standard deviation by multiplying standard deviation by 1.65 and then using this figure to calculate cumulative standard deviation?
1.65SD/sqrt(total hours) and then divide this figure by total hours to get a 95% confidence interval?
Thanks again, I should know this stuff but it's been a long time. This is the downside of blackbox statistical tools that give you regression results and the like quick and easy allowing you get fuzzy on the basics after years pass since you actually learned them.
Paul Talbot
So if I want a 95% confidence interval I would calculate a new cumulative standard deviation by multiplying standard deviation by 1.65 and then using this figure to calculate cumulative standard deviation?
1.65SD/sqrt(total hours) and then divide this figure by total hours to get a 95% confidence interval?
No, don't divide by total hours. 1.65SD/sqrt(hours) is your 95% confidence interval (+/-). SD here is your hourly SD. We are not computing a new cumulative SD, we are saying 1.65 standard errors is the 95% confidence interval where 1 standard error is SD/sqrt(hours). Cumulative SD is always SD*sqrt(hours) but you don't really need the cummulative SD for the confidence interval calculation.
This should summarize the situation:
1 standard error = 68% confidence interval = SD/sqrt(N) = cumulative SD/N = SD*sqrt(N)/N
1.65 standard errors = 95% confidence interval
Bruce Z has answered your question. I would make one elaboration. If you want to have greater precision in your hourly earn estimate than you must play more hours. In our example of a $5-$10 game and a standard deviation of $100 per hour suppose you wanted a confidence interval within $1 per hour rather than within $5 per hour? Than instead of playing 400 hours you would have to play 10,000 hours (($100/hr)*(sq root 10,000 hours))/(10,000 hours).
Now some games are so big that you will never live long enough to know within say a $1 per hour what your true hourly earn is. Suppose you played $100-$200 hold-em with a standard deviation of $1000 per hour? You would have to play 1 million hours to reduce the uncertainity to within $1 per hour.
I'm not quite sure how to use the SD/sqrt(N) in relation to an hourly rate anymore. I think BruceZ said, and please correct me if I am wrong, that this does not give you an estimate of the range of you're true hourly rate, but in fact tells you the range that your hourly rate will fall into over a given amount of time, assuming you already know your true hourly rate.
Let me ask a question through example: In the example where you have 10,000 hours of play, a win rate of $10/hr, and an hourly SD or $100, your confidence interval is $100/sqrt(10,000) = $1 Which of the following two phrases is accurate, if either? Assuming everything lives within 3 SD's.
a) After 10,000 hours of play you will have somewhere in the range of ($10 + $1)(10,000 hrs)(3 SD's) to ($10 - $1)(10,000 hrs)(3 SD's) or somewhere from $330,000 to $270,000. And this assumes that you're $10/hr rate is your true rate.
b) After 10,000 hours of play and the SD and Win rate specified above, your true hourly rate is within $3 ($1 * 3 SD's) of $10, so your true hourly rate is between $8.5 and $11.5
Are either of these statements correct? both?
If the first statement is correct but not the second, then how do you figure out your "true" hourly rate to within some degree of confidence?
Neither of your statements is accurate. If you want to assume that everyone lives within 3 standard deviations then the following is true. After 10,000 hours of play everyone who can theoretically beat the game for $10 per hour and who has a standard deviation of $100 per hour will win somewhere between $70,000 and $130,000 which is plus or minus 3 standard deviations from the expected result of $100,000. Their hourly earn will be somewhere between $7 per hour and $13 per hour which is $10 per hour plus or minus 3 standard deviations. The following is a more detailed discussion:
With regard to a), after 10,000 hours of play your expected result is to win $100,000. This is estimated by simply multiplying $10 per hour times 10,000 hours. But how much uncertainity is associated with this estimate? If your standard deviation is $100 per hour, then after 10,000 hours your cumulative standard deviation is $10,000. This is estimated by multiplying $100 per hour times the square root of 10,000 hours. Then we can make the following statement:
After 10,000 hours of play, about 68% of the time you will win somewhere between $90,000 and $110,000. This is simply $100,000 plus or minus one standard deviation which is $10,000. After 10,000 hours of play, about 95% of the time you will win somewhere between $80,000 and $120,000. This is plus or minus 2 standard deviations from your expected result. After 10,000 hours of play, you will win somewhere between $70,000 and $130,000 over 99% of the time which is plus or minus 3 standard deviations.
Now let us exam statement b)
After 10,000 hours of play the uncertainity associated with your computed hourly earn is $1 per hour. This is computed by assuming that your true hourly standard deviation is $100 per hour and then multiplying that by the square root of 10,000 hours and dividing that product by 10,000 hours. Suppose I play 10,000 hours and win $60,000. I then estimate my earn to be $6 per hour. I make this estimate by simply dividing $60,000 by 10,000 hours. But how much uncertainity is associated with this hourly estimate? Well, 68% of the time my true hourly earn will be somewhere between $5 per hour and $7 per hour. This is computed by taking $6 per hour and adding or subtracting $1 per hour. Now, 95% of the time my true hourly earn will be somewhere between $4 per hour and $8 per hour. This is computed by taking my estimated hourly earn plus or minus 2 standard deviates. 99% of the time my true hourly earn will be somewhere between $3 per hour and $9 per hour which is my estimated hourly earn plus or minus 3 standard deviates.
I hope this clarifies it.
When I said SD/sqrt(N) was the length of the confidence interval, I meant +/-, not the total length as it looks like you assumed in statement b. So 3 SD is +/- $3/hour.
These calculations in my mind are inaccurate because they: 1. Assume a standard deviation that may well be too low 2. Are based on the assumtion that poker outcomes follow a normal distribution. 3. Don't take into account the heavy dependence on winning the rare big pots.
For # 1:
Is ten large bets a fair assumption for standard deviation when it is not uncommon to be involved in four or more hands in an hour, each of which average 4 or so big bets if one stays to the river, and each of which can easily go 6-8 big bets? Also, there will be several hours during which one plays 6 or more hands to the turm or river, and that likely means at least 25 big bets. Winning two big hands in one hours puts one up well over $300, again skewing the standard dev. The main thing going for the assumption of $100 is the many hours during which a good player breaks even.
For # 2:
"Normal" (or "Gaussian") distributions are bell curves. In these, the average of all results (the "mean") is also supposed to be roughly the most common outcome, and outcomes like (mean plus 20) and (mean minus 20) are supposed to be roughly equally common. If the outcomes are almost bell-shaped, then the rules still apply. BUT, for good players the hourly outcomes are mostly a few break-evens and small losses mixed with a few big wins. This makes the bell curve less bell shaped and makes the calculations based on mean and standrad deviation less accurate.
For #3:
This has been discussed extensively by both David and Mason in their columns. Suppose you chase an average of 1 flush draw an hour. Guess about 15% of these will be huge pots that you chase to the river with more than 40 big bets. That means in 1000 hours you're involved in about 150 big flush pots. Odds are you'll hit 32% or so (given two flush cards on the flop) and lose a few due to overflushes and bigger hands. So let's say you win 25 huge pots on average in 10000 hours and that's 1800 or so big bets in flush wins. Well, if you get a bad run IN BIG POTS and only take 10% (that's bad, but it's not even two standard deviations below expected), you've failed to win 1080 big bets that were expected, or a whole big bet an hour based on just having a bad run in big hands.
Point is, I think the true standard deviation over 1000 hours is much higher than the calculations suggest.
These calculations in my mind are inaccurate because they: 1. Assume a standard deviation that may well be too low 2. Are based on the assumtion that poker outcomes follow a normal distribution. 3. Don't take into account the heavy dependence on winning the rare big pots.
1. The estimated SD will be much more accurate than the estimated hourly rate. For example, if the true hourly rate is 1 bb/hr, and the true SD is 10 bb/hr, after 400 hours the 68% confidence interval for hourly rate is +/- .5 bb/hr or within 50%, but the 68% confidence interval for the SD is only +/- .7 bb/hr or within 7%. In fact the SD will always be this accurate after this many hours regardless of what the true SD is. So it is relatively easy to get an estimate for the SD which does not represent a significant source of error compared to the size of the confidence interval we compute for the hourly rate. As the number of hours increases this source of error becomes negligible.
2. We do not have to assume that poker outcomes or even hourly outcomes follow a normal distribution in order for these calculations to be correct, and in fact they may not. The central limit theorem states (basically) that the individual outcomes can come from any distribution and our long term result (sum of the individual hourly wins) will follow a normal distribution.
We can take our long term results and compute an hourly rate and hourly SD, but it would be INCORRECT to apply the normal distribution to compute probabilities of winning a certain amount in any given hour since the hourly results may not be normaly distributed. But this is not how we use these numbers, they are always used as an average over long term results.
3. This is all taken into account by the standard deviation once enough hours have been played that the results become normally distributed.
I think you want some sort of quick, easy answer to this and the garbled statistics answers aren't quite doing it for you...
We all know that hourly poker results do not follow a normal distribution. However, we are not trying to predict the amount of money you will make in your next hour of poker play; we are trying to predict your hourly winning rate.
In statistics terms, we are trying to predict the mean of the distribution - we don't care about the shape of the distribution at all.
Now, this central limit theorem that everyone is touting tells you that the distribution of the mean of any distribution will follow a normal distribution.
So, when we find an hourly rate with some standard deviation, this doesn't mean that we believe that in each hour you play, your results will fall in a normal distribution around that value; we only believe that your hourly rate is precisely that value with some degree of confidence.
...oh well, I thought I would be able to explain that more clearly and concisely, but I don't think I did a great job - maybe I'll get lucky and you'll actually understand what I'm talking about.
~DjTj
yo, ted. reread mr central limit theorem. youve missed a couple hypothothese. think about covariance between hourly results.
scott
Mason (Mr. Maluth? Mssr. Malmuth? How do you prefer to be addressed?)
Would you mind commenting on the above post, especially the assumption of normal distribution? Thanks in advance.
It seems you want a quick answer, well here goes...
Please check out the 'Central Limit Theorum' in any begginer statistics book.
Where are you guys getting these formulae? Are these basic statistical formulae or are these a byproduct of gambling theory? It looks to me like you guys are applying basic statistical analysis to poker situations but I can't be sure. To be fair... I haven't given any of this stuff (SD and everything it relates to) much thought in my poker career, but I am going to start. I've been reading posts lately, which are talking about confidence intervals and stuff, I'd like to be able to calculate these.
I've taken some basic stats (I'm an engineering student) and I'm not familiar with these formulae. Of course I didn't play poker when I took stats, so I thought it was useless and I didn't pay much attention; it was easy and I didn't care.
Are these things discussed in Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth? I've been waiting so long for that book to arrive....
Gambling Theory and Other Topics doesn't really dwell on statistics a whole lot, and I would encourage you to go to the library and take out an elementary statistics book and take some time to understand the basics - it will help your poker as well as your engineering...
~DjTj
I was talking to an old-timer in a cardroom the other day, waiting for a small tourney to get started. He told me some stories of the old games here in the Pacific Northwest, lumber and mining camp games and such. I responded with some second- hand tales my father told me as a youth in Texas.
The one I'd like to relate is a betting structure for Holdem this man told me used to be popular here in Washington State and Idaho.
The structure was a small ante (say $.50 in a 5-10 game) for everyone, and a small-bet sized forced bet on the part of the dealer. Betting then began to the left of the dealer, naturally.
Anyone ever play this structure? It sounds like fun, just wondered what thoughts or experiences anyone had with this.
Jones
Pretty boring game since you need a premium hand to enter a pot KNOWING you are out of position against someone who's getting 3+:1 to call the raise.
The ante slows the game down for no good reason.
- Louie
Tom Weideman started by responded to a comment from Hippiechuckl who had written:
>This is exactly the sort of laydown I have been advocating recently. Sklansky is to be congradulated for playing PEOPLE POKER instead of using a math formula to determine whether or not to call.
Weideman wrote: I'llsay it one more time; Unless you know how to "use a math formula to determine whether or not to call, you are in no position to claim that acting in another fashion is better." Hint: the "people poker" you speak of is a method of gathering numbers to plug into the s00per seekrit math formula, but the formula is ALWAYS there. These skills are not mutually exclusive of each other.
I'm experiencing deja vu, as I've had a similar discussion with Badger some time ago. Maybe I should just give up and let people go on believing there are two distinct ways to play poker. Sigh, let me try one last time with a simple example of a different game:
Let's say I offer you 4-to-1 odds on a $1 bet that you can't guess the number I am thinking about between 1 and 10. Here are the two schools of thought that we have to choose from:
I. Math egghead - "Hmm, I have only a 1-in-10chance of guessing right, so my ev in this case is:
ev = 0.1*(+$4)+ 0.9*(-$1)= -$0.50
I stand to lose 50 cents on this bet, so I will decline."
II. People player - "Well, I remember one time when Tom was talking to someone I overheard him say that in these situations he ALWAYS picks one of the endpoints, because guessers never seem to guess the endpoint. This means I'm 50-50 to guess right if I guess either 1 or 10, and with him offering 4-to-1, this is a good spot, and I will accept."
Sound about right? WELL, THIS IS FALLACIOUS DICHOTOMIZING. What I mean is, one is not given a choice between these two options and told to select one. Though it is hidden the way I wrote it above, there is a mathematical formula in option II, just as there is in option I. The ONLY difference between there two options is the information gathered. The information in the second case leads to the following ev calculation:
ev = 0.5*(+$4)+ 0.5*(-$1)= +$1.50
The ev is positive, so you play the game. If you look at the two ev evaluations, you'll see that the only changes are the 0.9 became 0.5, and this changed the sign of the ev, and therefore changed the decision made. What changed these two little numbers? The INFORMATION you gathered with your "people skills".
So you see, the game is ultimately mathematical, because the only thing that matters in your decision making is which choice provides the greater ev, and this requires a calculation in the end. But the numbers plugged into the calculation can be altered by using your people skills, so using that as a method of gathering information, followed by the math calculation is what makes you a good player. This all becomes interesting(to me)to discuss when someone THINKS they are making the correct decision based on the information they have, but in fact they lack the math skills to determine which decision really is proper.
BADGER snipped a comment from the above post which was,
>I'm experiencing deja vu, as I've had a similar discussion with Badger some time ago.
BADGER wrote: Bzzzzzt. Oh you did not. I have said many times that all sensible or correct poker decisions are the result of a mathematical analysis, even if the player doesn't realize it.
I differ with you in that I don't think *doing* the math is nearly as important as gathering the data that leads to making the correct mathematical formula. I think it's more important to excel at the people observation and manipulation than to calculate the proper play based on the gathered data. Notice I just said "more" important, not that it is unimportant. I think the proof that I am "right" in this, is that lots of players who are good "people players" manage to do the right thing without ever even putting it into a math context. If I was not right, the players who we can see actually are good people players, would end up losing far more than they do. I suppose I'm saying it's easier for a person who is terrific with people but clueless at math to beat poker than a person who is terrific at math but clueless about people (gathering data).
The other way we differ led to one of my (I think) better articles, which you never flammed me about at all so maybe you didn't see it. I don't want to re-babble this second way/difference, but it also does NOT question the fundemental importance and value of math in correct poker decisions.
The End
Wow! Great post. I especially like the part about FALLACIOUS DICHOTOMIZING! Sounds like a blow job.
Speaking of snow jobs. I think your whole premise is one big snow job. That is "the game is ultimately mathematical" I contend that the need for simple addition and division does not make the game mathematical. In fact I would go as far as saying a person need only be able to approximate pot odds to be a winning poker player. By that I mean he need only look at the pot and notice: "it's big, I'll do this or it's small I'll do that". If that is considered mathematics then I yield. But I don't think so.
"BADGER wrote: Bzzzzzt. Oh you did not. I have said many times that all sensible or correct poker decisions are the result of a mathematical analysis, even if the player doesn't realize it. "
These statemenst looks like something from an intellectual wannabe that is trying to cover his ass. To say you perform mathematical analysis to make your poker decisions is fine but to extract from that that others do it "even if they don't realize it" is egotistical arrogance.
You wrote:
"This all becomes interesting(to me)to discuss when someone THINKS they are making the correct decision based on the information they have, but in fact they lack the math skills to determine which decision really is proper."
Another ego gone haywire here. How dare they "THINK". Especially when you know for sure you are correct.
I can't figure out from your post if Badger or you wrote:
"I differ with you in that I don't think *doing* the math is nearly as important as gathering the data that leads to making the correct mathematical formula. "
This is an understatement to say the least. But at least on my opinion it is in the ball park. In fact this whole paragraph headed by this sentence makes your post wothrwhile reading.
the whole problem with your post in my view is that it starts by extolling the value of math in such a ay as to make one feel you need to be a Sklansky to play poker well then it ends with the impression that following the lead of a T.J. Cloutier may be the best way to play poker well.
You wrote that:
"Maybe I should just give up and let people go on believing there are two distinct ways to play poker. "
I agree that there are not two distinct "ways" to play poker. Of course neither is there one.
Vince
Everything is their's. The first half of the post is Mr.Weideman's. Then the rest is BADGER's.(Except for the words "The End", at the end.) Sorry for the mix up, my fault.
-Dan
it truly amazes me the ego of mankind...why in the world would anyone want to get into a damn huff over what to me is shear ego appeal... as for me all i seek is balance in my math skills combined with my people skills... yes I need to know drawing odds... yes i need to know pot odds... yes i need to know implied odds... but what i do not need to know is quantum god damn mathematical formula thoery as to how these figures come about.. both traits are parellel in the quality of any player without great extremes as i witness quite often here...consistant winners cant have success without the both schools of thought working as one harmonious function of mind and gut.... one last thought ...it aint how well you play but how well you DO play....I believe these words came from th thoughts of roy west...believe it or not this simple phrase has brought greater insight into my mind set then most any other tidbit of info i`ve read...
jg
Vince wrote:
Speaking of snow jobs. I think your whole premise is one big snow job. That is "the game is ultimately mathematical" I contend that the need for simple addition and division does not make the game mathematical. In fact I would go as far as saying a person need only be able to approximate pot odds to be a winning poker player. By that I mean he need only look at the pot and notice: "it's big, I'll do this or it's small I'll do that". If that is considered mathematics then I yield. But I don't think so.
My response:
I like the "pull no punches" attitude you have, but I think if you knew the context of my post, you might find that we are in closer agreement than you think. If after the background I give you below you still see my post as a "snow job", then I can only conclude that you are just being contentious for the sake of being so, or I've overestimated your capacity for rational thought (I actually have found your posts to be quite good). Anyway...
I agree that to be a winning player one does not need to be able to plug into some formula in their head, and that a general ability to estimate pot/implied/effective odds is all that is required at the table. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with this. Instead, I was responding to someone who claimed that they played a hand in such a manner where their "people skills" told them to do something that "mathematical players" wouldn't do.
There seemed to be a concensus that there are two distinct ways to make a decision: 1. Either figure out what a player is holding (and what this player is likely to do with this holding) and act accordingly, or 2. Use some arcane formula to make the decision without employing any people skills at all. Furthermore, many people expressed a preference of #1 to #2. My post was simply intended to point out that there does not exist such a dichotomy of methods. People who ultimately use a formula to describe what decision they come to start off by making certain assumptions based on their reads of their opponents. Only after they have gathered this data do they use it in the equation. This equation constitutes the "act accordingly" part of #1.
In the actual heat of battle, they don't visualize the equation in their heads, but rather make approximations, educated guesses, and simple arithmetic computations. It's just that the post-mortem analysis of the hand sometimes brings out the detailed computations, and these tend to frighten and confuse some people enough to speak out against the "math eggheads who don't seem to know that poker is a people game."
BTW, all of this assumes we are talking about playing so that we exploit our opponents as best we can. If we were to discuss game theory, then I actually could make a case for poker being "purely mathematical", without any need for people skills at all to be a winning player. But since everyone approaches the game from am exploitive standpoint rather than an optimal one, I'll just leave this alone.
Tom Weideman
Tom,
Poker is a game of "fuzzy logic". Not the kind that computers use to come to decisions. The "fuzzy logic" is the logic used by the vast majority of poker players. In stud, it it boils down to "I have a pair I'm going for it or something similar" "In Holdem it is "Any two cards can win".
Thank god and/or human behavior for this type of "fuzzy logic" or else poker would not be beatable.
A poker player employing sound logical strategy based on rigorous mathematical analysis will undoubtedly beat "fuzzy logic" players. I believe we agree on this point.
My problem is with: "This equation constitutes the "act accordingly" part of #1." You contend that people perform some kind of evaluation (mathematical or logical) when making a decision even if they don't realize it. What I believe you are doing is evaluating how you make decisions and then interpolating the results to all other decision makers. Because this seems to make sense does not mean it is true. For example, someone may look at another player and say to himself "I can't stand the way this guy parts his hair, I call that bet"
Even though my example is a silly one and very simple you can not disprove that people make decions based on "who knows what"? I believe Mike Caro has written on people making decisions on "whims". These whims are personal and may or may not me formulized. I beleive most people act in a manner more akin to whim influenced than logic influenced.
"One other thing;
"then I can only conclude that you are just being contentious for the sake of being so,"
Sometimes your first impression is the right one.
vince
Poker is a game of "fuzzy logic". Not the kind that computers use to come to decisions.
I got a laugh and a half out of this one considering I did my post-graduate work in an area dealing with fuzzy logic for artifically intelligent computer systems which is where this term originates.
"Ignorance and arrogance do a pathetic duet".
"Poker is a game of "fuzzy logic". Not the kind that computers use to come to decisions. "
With your post graduate education that was all you could find to comment on about this high school graduates post. But, please, don't get down on yourself so bad-lee. It may make you ignorant or arrogant but hardly both as you have so humbly confessed. I especially like the way you put it "... a pathetic duet" Both sides of your brain in harmony. I can dig it!
vince
Vince wrote:
My problem is with: "This equation constitutes the "act accordingly" part of #1." You contend that people perform some kind of evaluation (mathematical or logical) when making a decision even if they don't realize it.
My response:
I wouldn't put it this way. If I did, then I'd be wrong for exactly the reasons you state. Rather I would say that WHATEVER decision they made based upon the information they are using (even if this decision is pure insanity), the correctness of that decision can be determined mathematically, and that the mathematics may come to different conclusions when different information is used.
Thus (as you pointed out) the winning (exploitive) players are those people that both: 1. Gather information well (have good "people skills") and 2. Boil this information down to a bet/fold/call/raise decision in a manner (whatever that manner happens to be) that closely approximates what the detailed math would indicate.
Tom Weideman
Tom,
At first I believed I agreed with you. I needed some clarification.
"the correctness of that decision can be determined mathematically,"
Now I'm sure I agree.
Vince
By the way - Even though I agree with this statement I could make a case that in many instances the correctness of the decision may not be easily defined mathematically. At least not without considering more than just the immediate results.
!!!
I still have no idea who wrote what in this post, but I agree 1000% with whoever was talking about people skills serving to gather numbers to plug into an underlying mathematical formula. I also agree that everyone does this whether they know it or not, it's just that many have the wrong formula. This is what I was trying to say in an earlier thread.
Vince, you still don't get it. You seem to think that all there is to the mathematics of the game is doing a little calculation of the pot odds at the table. If that was all there was to it then I'd agree with your position. But in reality a mathematical forumla can be constructed away from the table for virtually every aspect of the game you can think of, it's just that in many cases the uncertainty of the inputs to the equation are huge, and in many other cases the formula breaks down to a simple special case as in "do one thing when the pot is big and another when the pot is small". But the formula STILL EXISTS in all these cases, and being aware of it has to give you more information than being ignorant of it.
"it's just that in many cases the uncertainty of the inputs to the equation are huge"
BruceZ,
This statement, my friend, is the poo pah defense of the matematician.
"Vince, you still don't get it.
BruceZ, it really doesn't matter whether I "STILL don't get it", now does it.
"You seem to think that all there is to the mathematics of the game is doing a little calculation of the pot odds at the table"
How perceptive of you.
"But in reality a mathematical forumla can be constructed away from the table for virtually every aspect of the game you can think of,"
This statement really looks like it came out of the wrong end of the horse. Being a mathematic profy I Ass-u-me you can comprehend what is meant by - Prove it! Even if this where true then; SO WHAT. BY the way, for which aspects of the game can't you construct a mathematical formula?
BruceZ I recommend you let Tom Weideman assist you in search for the truth. I believe he makes perfectly "good" sense.
vince
Oh yeah, I bet you believe that man has actually walked on the moon. Now don't you?
I have only read scanned this thread lightly and have not taken the time to really think deeply about it. I have two superficial observations.
1) Tom Weideman's post on RGP was excellent
2) copied from above post:
"You seem to think that all there is to the mathematics of the game is doing a little calculation of the pot odds at the table"
Vince: "How perceptive of you"
Vince is this really you? Do you really think that??? What about the chances of your opponent foilding, the chances of a bluff being successful, the chances of your river value bet being a good bet (including the chances you will get paid off by a worse hand or get raised by a better one) versus the chances of successfully inducing a bluff, etc., etc. Was this just an oversight on your part or do you discount such things as not being a part of the mathematics of the game (or at least not an important part of the game).
I believe that such things are indeed important mathematical aspects of the game.
Hey, everybody, let's play poker! Alright , i.k. o.k. the 8 seat my favorite wow. Yeah ok dealer shuffle up and deal. Pt them cards in the air. I'm ready. Let's go. Yessir first hand and I'm in the cutoff wow let's do it. Ok first card, the Queen of Spades wow. Half a hand already come on get me that other pain baby. Send it here!, Yup, oh my, second card Q of diamonds. Man now what is the cance of that happening . Frst hand. In the cut off. Pocket queens. Let's see 221 to..Hmm.. I better wait until after the hand to do that.
Ok. let's go..What? eh.. UTG raised? Really..hmm ok let's go fold,fold,fold,fold,fold to me... O.k wait a minute.."Time dealer.." let's see now if UTG raised with A,Q, A,K or KK, or AA then it is ..16 A,K's, I have 2 queens so it's 8 A,Q's. 12 pairs.. Hmmm ok then it's 24 to 12 that he doesn't have me beat.. That's good. Right, so I should raise, right? Wait a minute if he has A,K then I'm only a 11 to 10 favorite so then I have to figure that plus if he has A, Q I'm a Well this is getting complicated. Dealer I need morre time...
O.K let's see now there is the blinds and the raise, that equals $55 and I have to call $30 or raise to $45. If I just call I am getting $55 to 30 for a hand that figures to be better than my opponent .. Wait maybe I should add a little EV because this guy is pretty loose.. He would raise with J,J or TT so that means I have a better chance of "Dealer more time.." Gee man what would Oz do? Gosh..
Now if I just call and if the button calls and the blinds call then I am getting good imlied odds so maybe I should just call, right?
Dealer I want to use one of my lifelines.... I want to call my buddy, Fossilman, for a EV evaluation. Or is that an EV eval.. better call John Cole on that one.
What do you mean the hand is over.. I asked for time? Come on, how can you award the pot to someone else and muck my hand... Floorman, floorman,,Regis, Kathy Lee,,,,Frank,, anybody
That's just great. Now, let's see what that loss that could have been a win does to my hourly rate. The square of the denominator times the numerator ...
vince.
Vince that is somewhat funny but it is not addressing what I had in mind.
Don't you recall the various instances in Sklansky's The Theory Of Poker where he talks about deciding whether you should bet or check and why. Specifically he gives examples of this throughout the book in the format of summing the various chances of certain scenarios and using the combined probability to determine your best course of action. For your benefit I will qoute a bit here:
page 206: (referring to deciding to bet or check-raise when holding a very strong hand)
"In limit games the decision to check-raise or come out betting can be determined by a precise formula. To simplify, we'll assume you know for sure you have the best hand. First, determine what percentage of times your opponent will call if you bet. That's one side of the equation. Next determine what percentage of times your opponent will bet if you check but fold if you raise. Finally, determine what percentage of times your opponent will bet if you check and then call your raise. Now double this last percentage. If the sum of the last two percentages is greater than the first, it is correct to try for a check-raise.
This formula may sound overly complicated, but it is really not.. Let's say...
Another way of looking at the problem is in terms of expectation. Let's say you bet 100 times, and you check with the intention of raising 100 times...you win 20 more bets by check-raising (based on previously assigned specific probabilities in the above formula)..."
end quote
Now Vince either that is mathematics of optimal poker strategy or it is not. I suggest that this type of calculation is actually important even if you have to ballpark it. I also suggest that you, I and everyone else reread their copies of Top from time to time, and if you don't have one order one. In fact I vaguely seem to recall you may have listed your poker library once and it seemed like it might be lacking a bit in areas I wouldn't have expected. OK so sue me if I am wrong--I just said I vaguely seem to recall, anyway.
The more you immerse yourself in these things the more they are always with you and available to be used as weapons in the heat of the battle.
Now if that is not poker math what is it?
^
"In limit games the decision to check-raise or come out betting can be determined by a precise formula. To simplify, we'll assume you know for sure you have the best hand. First, determine what percentage of times your opponent will call if you bet. That's one side of the equation. Next determine what percentage of times your opponent will bet if you check but fold if you raise. Finally, determine what percentage of times your opponent will bet if you check and then call your raise. Now double this last percentage. If the sum of the last two percentages is greater than the first, it is correct to try for a check-raise."
This is called fuzzy thinking or fuzzy talking. Something David is good at.
a = the percentage your opponent will call if you bet.
b = the percentage your opponent will bet if you check but fold if you raise
c = the percentage your opponent will bet if you check then call your raise
2d = double the last percentage
If c+2d > a then check raise
That looks kinda right now doesn't it?
Now if you plug in the right numbers you say you will see that against certain opponents you should check raise. Do you think that I need this formula to know that?
Another thing, you can play against the same opponent for your whole life and not come up with the exact percentages to plug into this logic tree to make it of any practical value. For one thing your opponents behavior is in these cases dependent on quite a few elements least of all is his whether or not it is that time of the month.
This concept or formula if it is of any value at all, in my opinion, is that it makes you think about your options. It is not something that one should attempt to literally apply during a poker game.
Vince.
Hey M, Too much of a good thing can be bad as in the case of Mathematically analyzing poker. Do you agree?
Vince:
The correct interpretation of his formula is not what you wrote in your equation as: if c + 2d >a then check-raise.
The correct interpretation is: if b + 2c > a then check-raise. If you had followed the rationale behind the formula you would not have been subject to misinterpreting what he was trying to convey. The reason you double the last percentage (c) is because it is a double bet instead of a single bet. Clearly it makes sense to add this doubled percentage (the value of 2 bets gained) to (b), instead of adding it to itself again as you did, especially when you consider that you are comparing the value of these two combined scenarios against the value of betting right out.
While against certain opponents and in certain situations it can be obvious which is the best choice of actions, much of the time itr is not so obvious. The value of such a formula is that if you get good at recognizing and applying it, it will make you money. How much money? Well, in Sklansky's example he assigns a 70% chance to the opponent calling a bet; a 40% chance that he will bet if you check and then call your raise; and a 10% chance that he will bet and then fold to your raise. Now it may not be intuitively obvious what you should do in such a typical situation (notice that his chosen example percentages are actually rather typical of many opponents in many situations). But if you use the formula you will see that you gain 20 big bets in 200 such plays. That's not to be sneezed at since all successful gambling is the sum of small gains. An extra bet here and there really adds up.
Of course you do not need a precise formula or exact percentages in the game, but awareness of the relationships of the factors and outcomes is key to making the best decision in many situations. Merely "considering the options" is a step in the right direction, but it is better if you also can determine the best action given the available info. "Considering" won't necessarily lead you to the best course of action.
Sklansky then gives a further simplification of the formula for more practical and immediate use in general. Bet you don't know what it is without looking it up.
In answer to your last question, I don't think you can make the case that there can be too much mathematical analysis of poker. How much of it you choose to use is up to you, but what you choose to use does impact your long-term results.
"Well, in Sklansky's example he assigns a 70% chance to the opponent calling a bet; a 40% chance that he will bet if you check and then call your raise; and a 10% chance that he will bet and then fold to your raise."
M,
Does the formula still work when you plug in percentages that total 120%? If math is so important then simple addition should be essential.
Sorry to nit pick, but you're just too damn serious about this.
The percentages are not supposed to add up to 100%.
You could have the percentages add up to 70% in the above scenario if you gave your opponent a zero percent chance of betting if you check.
It's "serious" poker math! Or "serious poker" math, take your pick.
Thanks for the gentle correction.
You are a good guy, Sammy. I can just tell.
You're only saying that because you found out I'm connected.
:-)
SammyB
You have to be connected or you couldn't post.
You stick to the math, leave the jokes for me.
:-)
Listen i understand the formula. I know I wrote it incorrectly but I was to tired to fix it and didn't think it added much to the point of the discussion but since you bring it up.
How do you assign a %70 chance an opponent will call if you bet? What is the critcal point? 60%? 50.87658,.
Look, David says that you are sure you have the best hand. The vast majority of the time in holdem that translates into the nuts. When your opponent doesn't have the nuts he knows it unless he is totally brain dead. You play holdem, how often do you know you have the best hand on the river. How often do you get an opponent that will bet the river without the nuts. You don't need nor would you ever use a formula to make that play. You would quite frankly use intuition for the lack of a better term.
If your opponents are brain dead don't worry about extracting extra bets. You do not need math to beat brain dead folk. You need a wheel barrel to carry thier money home in.
Mason and David have stated before in their published work that some players play so badly that they literally throw their money at you. Those are the kind of folk that do the same thing %70-100 of the time. Don't waste precious energy on them.
Concern yourself with the players that can extract extra bets from you if you make a mistake. Against them you don't even want to try and use a math formula. You play them straight up depending on the situation. Sure they have learned behavior like the brain dead but they have an advantage, they know it, so they think before they act.
Why do I always have to correct you when you believe I am wrong. By the way the word wrong is an antonym for Vince Lepore.
Vince.
Some good points you made Vince, but I do think that scheming ways to get extra bets out of brain-dead players is truly an important part of winning poker.
By the way I looked up "antonym" in the dikshunerry and it gave the same example that you gave.
/
I copy the following gem from a thread below; authored by Ray Zee:
"..gambling offers only small edges which mount up and you cannot afford to deviate too much - Louie
Thought many of you would like to know that Discovery Channel is showing last years World Series of Poker event this Wednesday evening @ 8pm...
This w-e I went to a casino with a very good HE player , he's playing at the 10-20 and the game has started 15minutes ago and it seem to a tight game .10 players at the table and the guy is unknown by 6 or 7 players at the table . That's what he did in a hand . he's in middle position with 4h-7h and he raises !!!! . The flop is K-10-7 ; BB bet , the guy raises !!!! . BB calls and he seems to be a good player , I have seen him in the past . The turn is a 4 (2 pairs) . BB check-call the turn and the river which was a blank . The guy open 4-7 , BB throw his cards in the muck (AK is possible). By doing this move early in the game , the guy gives the impression that he's a bad player which is vulnerable . More peoples at the table will call his raise later in the game , they will keep in mind the hand he has 4h-7h . Any comments ?
You can do this sort of stuff pretty regularly against tight players at 10-20. Most 10-20 games have the worst players of any limit, either too tight, too loose, no fundamentals, etc. Once you crack them with trash, you get paid off all night on your good hands. If you work a good rhythm, you'll catch them going in the wrong direction on most every hand until they are totally subdued. However, your friend got lucky because that flop wasn't exactly the sort of board I'm looking for when I make an unsound preflop raise. Something on the order of a couple of low straight cards with a big one is much more appropriate for that play.
#1 I think I have play this hand too much aggressivly 10-20 HE game , 7 peoples at the table , i'm alone with the blinds with Ad-Jh . Flop is 2d-5d-Jd , it's check to me , I bet , SB and BB calls , turn is 10s , SB bets (???) , BB calls , I raise (was that the move to do ? ) , SB was all-in but I didn,t realize before my raise , BB calls , I like the river ; 8d ...2d-5d-Jd_10s_8d . BB check fold with frustration (3d-4d) and SB shows his J-10 , 2pairs . #2 same game has #1 . I'm on the button with 6-6 in there are the blinds and 2 limpers . The flop is not too bad for me 6d-6c-10c . SB bets , BB fold , 2limpers call and I raise . With 3 peoples in the hand , I want their money while they are in the hand , maybe I would have slow play it with 2 peoples but with 3 I don't . the turn is a Qc , I will trap the clubs drawer(s) . But it is checked to me , I bet , I will trap someone with a big club . they fold , they have 10X maybe .
jean,
you played hand 1 just fine,but you should be alert and know he was allin. however since you didnt know he was, a call could have been in order. if you knew he wouldnt bet less than what you had and would call on the end most if you improved.
hand 2 was ok as well. but many times when you raise with the open pair on board they give you trips. so its hard to win a big pot or get alot of loose callers from there on. see if it came 667 or something similar they are more likely to be drawing for straights and also will put you on a straight draw in hopes of winning. i might have just called on the flop and waited. but no big deal as there were a bunch of callers and it is usually right not to slowplay when alot of people are in.
Jean,
If I read you correctly, you are on the button with 66 and the flop is 6,6,T. If that's so, your statement that "the flop is not too bad for me" may be the greatest understatement I've ever read.
Perhaps I'd slowplay this one.
John
nt
Abdul Jalib was nice enough to create a link to The Theory of Sucking-Out when he responded to one of my posts. Now I need a little help understanding the reasoning behind some of his figures.
Let's say I flop an open-ender or a four-flush. There are 47 unseen cards and 8 and 9 outs respectively. If I draw once on the flop, the odds to make the hands are 4.86:1 and 4.22:1. If I draw on the turn, with 46 unseen cards, the odds are 4.75:1 and 4.11:1. (# of unseen cards - # of outs): outs = prob. of making the hand. These are the numbers I need to know, right?
According to Abdul's charts, there are 8 outs for a straight when drawing one card and 14 1/2 outs (which I don't understand) when drawing two cards. What am I missing here? If I'm planning on drawing two cards, why do I have "effectively a bit less than double the number of outs for one card"? I don't understand how any of the outs are figured in the second chart. Secondly, is it correct to figure the outs with two cards to come as described above, or do I somehow use the numbers in Abdul's chart to do this?
Page 309 of HPFAP also shows a probability chart. It lists a flush draw as having 8 outs and a straight draw as having 15 outs. How is this possible? It also equates these odds with percentages of making a hand with two cards to come. S&M give a simple equation to change theses percentages into odds. By doing so, a hand with 8 outs=31.5% = 2.17:1. Which is it? Does 8 outs = 2.17:1, 4.75:1 or 4.86:1? Also, how do Abdul's and the S&M chart relate to each other?
Page 309 of HPFAP has a typo. The footnotes should be
3= sf draw
1= flush draw
2= str. draw
4= 2 pr or gutshot
As for Abdul, I can't help you there for the ways of the nomad are complex and mysterious.
Ok here I cut and pasted what you sshould have read between the charts ;)
"On the flop, if you are planning on taking your draw to the river, then you effectively have a bit less than double the number of outs for one card"
I make it a habit to re-read his whole site everyday. I usually catch something I missed the day before.
There's a 1-1 correspondance between outs and the probability of making your hand, when there's 1 card coming. It's easy to see. 8 outs = (8/47) probability of winning, if there're 47 cards left in the deck.
About 14 and a half outs in this case means that the probablity of winning when you see the hand to the end is about (14.5/47). Your overall chances of making the hand are equivilent to there being 14.5 cards that help you, even though those cards aren't actually there.
The math behind this isn't too hard, though you couldn't do it at the table. You can make the hand in 2 ways, on the first card or on the second card. The probability of making it on the second card is (39/47)*(8/46), since there are 39 cards out of 47 unseen that miss you on the first draw, and 8 out of the 46 remaining to make the hand on the second draw. The probability of making it on the first card is (8/47)*(46/46), since 8 cards make your hand on the first draw, and all 46 remaing cards don't matter for the second draw.
(Since the 2 ways of making your hand are disjoint and belong to the same sample space,) We can add these two probabilities to come up with the chance of making your hand. They are about 31%, which is about 14.7/47. That's how Abdul gets 14 and a half "effective" outs.
I am treating a 2 cards to come draw like a 1 card draw for the sake of computing pot odds and determining whether one should draw. If you are going to the river with, say, an 8-out straight draw, you obviously have 8 outs on the turn. If you make your straight on the turn, you can't make it again on the river, so you shouldn't count 8 outs again for the turn for a total of 16. 8/47 times you make your straight on the turn, nullifying your 8 out redraw on the turn, so you have 16-8*8/47=14.638 or about 14 1/2 effective outs.
In practice, I don't memorize the second chart (drawing two cards), because like I wrote, the correct number is a tad less than double the single card draw. And I don't have to memorize the first chart (single card draw), because the numbers are so intuitive. I know I have 8 outs to catch a straight with an open-ended straight draw. I know I have 2 outs to catch a set with a pocket pair. And so on. If I don't know how many outs my draw has, I can always just count them.
As for memorizing all the different minimal odds for draws, 4.86:1, 4.75:1, 4.22:1, 4.11:1, 2:17:1, etc., enjoy! This is the S&M way, too complicated for simple desert nomads. With the simple desert nomad approach, you only have to know how many outs you have. I consider it my personal failure that you find Mason Malmuth's writing and methodology easier to understand.
I can't help you with the S&M chart, as I have never seen it. However, as I noted 8 outs with two cards to come equals 14.638 outs for one card to come, and 14.638/47 = 31.14%, which is close to S&M's 31.5%. Actually the precise figure is 31.45% - I just simplified my calculations in this post to make it easy to understand here - the figures in my tables use the precise formula, but are rounded to the nearest 1/2.
-Abdul
The fact that you make a straight between %31 and %32 is really nice to know but not of great use when you are playing in a game. It helps a little when considering implied odds but the fact of the matter is that each street is handled independently and outs should be considered that way when making a decision.
If you have an open ended straight draw you have 8 ways to make your straight on the turn. If you have an open end straight on the turn you have eight ways to make the straight on the river.
The key thing to consider when considering ways to make your hand is to understand that ways of making your hand does not equal outs. Outs are the ways you have of making the winning hand.
Vince.
The streets are not independent of each other. Here's an example... suppose you are in late position with an open-ended straight draw (the top end) versus 4 opponents, the first has bet and the rest have called. In one of my tables I show that you need 9 1/5 effective outs to raise for value versus 4 opponents. By Vince's logic, you could not raise for value, as you can't consider your redraw on the turn when you're on the flop.
-Abdul
I'm going to probably re-state some very obviously basics that are going on in this thread, but as I understand the theory, the idea is that when you are on a draw of any kind, you want to make bets when odds (including implied odds) are in your favor, and avoid bets when the odds are against you. I realize there are other considerations, including possible dead draws, establishing image, and reading players, but this is what I understand to be the basic idea, which is foundational and can be enhanced as you gather other "people" information.
So here's what I've done, on a practical application of the Theory of Sucking out. I keep a very small cheat sheet in hand at the table (I have memorized most of it, and soon all of it), that simplifies the odds/outs rules. Here it is:
Outs Number of Bets Needed in Pot (includes
implied)
12 4 11 5 10 5 9 6 8 6 7 7 6 8 5 10 4 12 3 16 2 24
I count bets going in, and I know how to calculate my outs, and I can estimate the future bets likely to go in to the pot (usually discounted), and it's easy to make a decision from this chart. Of course, often I can call on the flop and not call on the turn, when bets double (or as I calculate it, bets in the pot are halved).
Is this right?
ok, that chart got completely screwed up from when I typed it to the post itself. Here it is again:
12 outs, need 4 bets in the pot
11 outs, need 5 bets
10 outs, need 5 bets
9 outs, need 6 bets
8 outs, need 6 bets
7 outs, need 7 bets
6 outs, need 8 bets
5 outs, need 10 bets
4 outs, need 12 bets
3 outs, need 16 bets
2 outs, need 24 bets
You're off by 1 on all your pot sizes, and you're memorizing a lot of numbers (or using a cheatsheet) instead of doing it the simple desert nomad way. Note that when you multiply each of your pairs of numbers, they each come out to greater than 46. The formula is C(1+P)>46 - if your effective outs (C) times 1 more than the effective pot (P) is greater than the number of unseen cards (47 on flop or 46 on the turn), then at least call. Technically, you need to add in your implied odds to P, and divide by your expected donation when you lose.
-Abdul
That is actually something I think I can do in my head, amazingly. Maybe it's because I'm becoming desertized myself (Phoenix).
Many thanks
Now that I understand how those outs were figured, how do they relate to the pot odds? i.e. If I flop a four-flush and have 3:1 pot odds, the odds of making my hand are 4.22:1 on the turn, and if I miss, 4.11:1 on the end, thus saying that my draw has a negative expectation. But according to your chart, my odds are about 1 3/4:1 with two cards to come, which says I should play. I'm missing something fundamental here. Basically, which numbers should I memorize when deciding to play based on the pot odds?
I personaly do not worry what my odds are of making my hand by the river, i only worry about what the odds are on the next card to fall. If i have the odds to see the next card i call if not fold. If it is really close and the pot is small i ussally fold.
It doesn't matter which set of numbers you memorize, as long as you use them properly. The fundamental thing you seem to be missing is that your pot odds are the effective pot size (current pot size plus expected future action) divided by your expected action when you lose. If you have to call bets on both the flop and turn, then that's at least 3 small bets, and you have to divide the pot size by that to get the pot odds.
Anyway, for most practical matters, Vince is correct, in that if you're drawing due to pot odds, you usually can just see if you have odds to call to see the turn, and then on the turn you can reassess the situation if you miss. There are some times when this isn't quite right, but basically you can use my "1 card to come" table when drawing for pot odds.
When your draw is so strong that you might be able to bet and raise for immediate value, making money on the additional money going into the pot ignoring the existing pot, then you'll need to use the "2 cards to come" table if you're on the flop.
-Abdul
Can't argue with that example.
vince.
Just look at the above example. Even when he starts out wrong he ends up becoming right. Sometimes it just takes a little longer, that's all.
Must have missed that day of high school huh Vince?
Hey Brucez,
Are you mad because you had to go to post graduate school to figure out that you don't know anything?
vince
BTW - Just how incorrect do you think I was and how correct is Abdul. Why not use your "fuzzy wuzzy logic" degree to enlighten us.
You're playing in an 8 handed low to mid limit game (5-10 to 15-30). You're two off the blinds. The under the gun player (who is solid and usually aggressive) brings it in for a raise. You're next and you look down to find pocket 9's. What do you do and why?
thanks!
8-handed, huh? This reminds me a bit of a past Lepore post where he constructed a scenario in which you knew the raiser would raise with AQ and some other hands but would not raise with QQ.
At a full table I am inclined to fold. As the game gets shorter reraising becomes better. Just where it becomes correct mathematically I don't know. If the poster ran this on a simulator I bet he chose 8 because it may be the closest decision when you have 8 players. Since my feeling is that this is a relatively close decision I would base it on other factors at the moment which I might observe from being at the table, such as anyone telegraphing folds or interest in the hand. The looseness or tightnesss of the table are also factors to consider. In addition, if it is a raked game I would be more inclined to fold especially at 5-10 limits.
While many may argue that it is mathematically correct to call here, or even at a full table, I don't like calling. I want to play 99 heads-up or big multiway or not at all. Putting in 2 or more bets in what may well be a 4-handed pot is not my idea of good poker.
Also I don't like the idea of running into an even better hand behind you. If the first don't get you the last one will (possibly). Bad position, unknown values behind you. All you know for sure is that the UTG Raiser is probably strong. Small favorite vs. big dog scenario combined with unknown action behind you.
Call. He's too far away to 3-bet.
I think this depends on the table.
Raise: if it is a table where you are pretty sure everyone would fold to a three bet then raise. Since the player is solid but aggressive there are a lot of hands he could have other than an overpair so you want it heads up.
Call: if it is loose and people are likely to come in if you call then call.
Fold: if there is a maniac to act after you and you might get trapped in a capped pot then fold. If you think that there will be only one or two callers after you then fold.
You want to play this hand heads up with UTG and have your nines hold up or with a bunch of people and hit a set. The worst would be a three or four-way pot. Whether or not you can get one of these scenarios depends on the people you are playing against.
In general I think that it is too likely someone will call the three bet (and you might get reraised) if you raise and that you won't get enough callers if you just call so in the absence of a good read on the mood fo your table I'd fold. A three bet may enhance your image though.
Paul Talbot
Anon,
I've just surfing after a hectic weekend so my mind is only at 50% right now BTW, there is a big difference between 5/10 and 15/30 but here goes.
If the game is fairly loose I will call hoping for more action behind and play mostly for the set but it is close between calling and folding. If the game is tighter I would fold or raise depending on how much the solid player respects my play at that moment and how likely it is that I could get it head up.
Regards,
Rick
Fold.
Why? Why is there air? Do you really want to play with a pair of nines against a solid player that raises early? Good Luck.
Vince
Vince
Vince,
Vince,
I'll elaborate a little further although I'm even more burnt out then last night. In a typical full game folding is right. But lately I am playing in games where I often have many tight unaggressive players behind me who just want to stay uninvolved in the hand when up against pressure (i.e., tight props). The solid UTG raiser knows this and tends to open raise with far less than "Jim Brier" type hands. If my image is right and I have a good read on the UTG player then I have a narrow raise here but of course I can't overdue it. Of course, if UTG is solid then he should not be that easy to read (hey, I said I was only 50% last night but am a sucker for polls).
On other nights I am in games that are fairly loose and players will cold call an UTG raiser and a cold caller (ME) and I'll get the multi-way action needed to make this play marginally OK. Then again, I have been running good so maybe I’m starting to get out of line.
OTOH, folding can't be wrong.
BTW, a few minutes ago I hit my head hard on a tree limb exiting the Jacuzzi so I have an additional excuse for anything less than what one would expect from a "top ten poster" ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick
Rick-Rick,
You know that I am a user of depends, no, I mean I profess that in poker "it depends". Yeah that's what I meant. So with your situational analysis being of a magnitude, perhaps one notch beneath that of the almighty Oz, himself, how could I argue with your logic. I wonder, though, just how correct you must be in your situation ANALysis to make a call correct? You would think with all the math weenies on thiis forum someone could give us the correct MATHEMATICAL analysis of this situation.
vince
Vince,
Regarding "ANALysis", was there some hidden message there?
Regards,
Rick
NO. Vince, he ain't SO goot a typerist, Rick.
JOhn
In general if I know the player will only raise on AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, or AQ I would fold. If he is the type of player who might start raising under the gun because the game is 8 handed with lesser hands then I would call but folding cannot be too far wrong even here. Complicating the problem is the fact that there are 6 players to act behind me and I don't know what they will do. I don't want to get trapped for multiple bets with this hand and have to pay an exorbitant price to take a flop.
Fold.
We all know that you must adjsut your game when the game starts to go short handed. A while ago I was in a private poker room and they were running a 10-20 holdem game with 13 players. My question is should you play the same way if it was a normal full game or should you adjust your game? Now what if there are more players than that playing, what about then? Thanks.
13 peoples ? someone told me that he ever play in a game where 17 were at the table . I think that a hand like A-10 could give you a kicker problems if an ace hit the flop . With many peoples at the table , you could considere to play amaller suited connector from earlier position .Maybe it would be could to make a raise from a late positon with a small-medium pair and check-fold if you donot realize a set or if your pair isn't over the board .
hey snails welcome to the 2+2 zoo. we have a goat, hamster, ratso, and a few more animal specimans posting and one or two that have left.
a 13 handed game will stink. you will see so many big pairs and sets that you must play really tight. much more so than nine handed. after the flop as well its tough to play on as you must be able to beat an overpair much of the time if there is any action. the good part is that if the game is really loose you see more hands for your blinds,but have to wait forever for a winning hand. good luck.
Do you think that the extra person at PP making it 10 handed is the reason for it's difficulty? Normally, our local card room plays 9 players. Does the 10th player require a similar tighten up adjustment?
most certainly so. because of it i wont generally play in 10 handed games unless its the only game in town.
That's an intreresting comment, Ray
All the poker I've played has been either online, in AC, or at a kitchen table. The kitchen games have almost always been short handed, and all the other (ring) games have had 10 seats, full or not.
With the exception of 3 handed to 2 handed, I don't feel that adding or removing one player changes the game significantly. (I'm talking about quantitiy here, not a particular player joining or leaving the game) Even the couple of times when I played an 11 handed game, it was never a problem.
Also, in a ten handed game, I would guess that only ~half of the hands are actually played ten handed. Very often at least one player will be away from the table, or someone will leave and several hands will be played before the new player enters the game. Have you observed the same thing? Would you rather play 8 handed?
Please explain.
B$
.10-20 HE . SB is a professionnal poker player , BB is very tight before the flop , he plays pair of 7 and higher , KQ , KJs , AK , AQ and AJs whatever his position is and whatever if there is a raise or not , and who raises or who's in the hand . And if he calls or bet on the river , he will take the pot 99% of the time . EveryBody fold to me . i'm on the button what should I do with 2-2 ? , A3off , AKs , 88 , 7-8s , AA ? When should I raise ,call or fold ?
Steps to take:
1) Don't look at your cards.
2) Raise. You say the BB plays very tight pre-flop. So raise always.
3) If either of them reraises, call.
4) Now look at your cards and play the hand accordingly.
Yeah, that's good advice (seriously, except you might as well wait until they bet the flop to look at your hand.) All the hands JPPiquette mentioned were normal blind stealing hands, and so there's no question that they should be played here. Normally, you're not going to open-limp on the button with any hand.
-Abdul
Well, the "don't look" advice was somewhat in jest, but I think that if you aren't raising every time first in on the button you are not playing correctly (unless one of the blinds is a far superior player). Although I hardly ever play hold'em, so what do I know...
If i hold anything playable other than maybe AA or KK i raise, I may or may not raise with the 2 top pairs.
Why on earth not? This is one of the best possible places to raise with AA or KK, since you are much more likely to get played with/payed off if the blinds suspect you were on a steal to start with. If they call and flop a pair, they are with you all the way to the river.
I don't see how you gain anything by mixing up your play here. Giving the BB a free shot to outdraw you just can't be good poker.
David
just ordered the last copy of the book in all of ontario from.. .chapters.. book store.. question is will I find it as great as ..Thoery of poker...
jg
That's Poker, Gaming, and Life.
This question presumes an all-in before the flop. In other words, I'm asking about the relative strengths of each matchup on the river, with no betting considerations, and pretend that straights and flushes don't exist.
1) ab verses cd
Example: Q-6 vs 3-2
2) ac verses bd
Example: Q-6 vs 9-2
3) ad verses bc
Example: Q-6 vs J-8
How many times out of 100 does the first hand beat the second hand? (Decimal points not required. :-) )
I have two things in mind: late-stage tournament play (limit or no-limit, where one player is commited), and ring-game no-limit. Any comment on how the answers affect play in these situations are also much appreciated.
Thanks!
Tommy
I think you can't give and exact number bc of straight and such. For example AK is a bigger favorite over QJ than AK is over 56 bc there are more chances for 56 to make a straight, and its is much harder for AK to make a straight when 56 amkes two pair while when QJ makes two pair AK will make a staight more often.
And there are flushes also to contend w/.
However if we pose the q how often will ab make more pairs (or trips and such) (that is we disregard straights and flushes) than cd and such we could give a well defined answer only depending on a > b >c > d.
.
By exact calculation I get:
1) Q6 beats 32: 69%
2) Q6 beats 92: 66%
3) Q6 beats J8: 60%
Calculations:
(n m) means ways to choose m cards from n cards = n!/(m!(n-m)!).
Q6 vs 32
{(42 5) + 6[(42 4)-(36 4)] + (6 2)[(42 3)-(36 3)-6(36 2)}/(48 5) = .69
Q6 vs 92
{(42 5) + 3[(42 4)-(36 4)] + 3[(42 4)-(39 4)] + (3 2)[(42 3)-(36 3)-6(33 2)] + (3 2)[(42 3)-(39 3)-3(39 2)] + 3*3[(42 3)-(36 3)-3(36 2)]}/(48 5) = .66
Q6 vs J8
{(42 5) + 6[(42 4)-(39 4)] + (6 2)[(42 3)-(39 3)-3(39 2)]}/(48 5) = .60
Explanation:
(42 5) is the number of ways our opponent gets no help. Added to this are the bracketed terms which represent the ways we win when our opponent gets 1 or 2 cards which help. If he gets 3 that help we lose. In the second case there are 2 bracketed terms for each of these since we have to consider the cases where he draws: 1 low card, 1 high card, 2 low cards, 2 high cards, and 1 high card and 1 low card. These are the 5 bracketed terms from left to right. Inside each bracketed term are the number of ways we win which is the total number of remaining combinations minus the ones where we do not win). All these combinations are divided by the total number of boards (48 5).
.
I have not seen much written on verbal manipulation at a poker table. Mike Caro has written on it some, and I've used two ideas of his on occasion (flashing a single card on the river to encourage a call and saying "you're not going to believe this" also to encourage a call, or cause confusion).
Last night, I was playing a 6-12 HE, in the BB I had 9-7 and 7 players called and saw the flop of 9-9-J rainbow. I checked, checked around, and button bet. I called along with 3 others! Turn came 9 giving me my quads, I again checked, button bet, and everyone but me folded. When I called, I said "ok, one more loose call." River came 3, I checked, button BET AGAIN! You know the rest of the story. Huge pot :)
I know to a good player my comment was a typical "weak is strong, strong is weak" tell. But this 22 year old hot-button was going to ram it down my throat for calling his 9's full. I don't think he would have bet on the river, though, if I didn't manipulate his thoughts with a sincere-sounding one-liner on the turn call. In fact, it occurred to me that my efforts to eliminate tells in my own game may be a mistake at low limits against fish. Maybe manipulation is the better ploy, used sparingly, since they probably haven't even heard of Book of Tells, let alone read Poker for Dummies.
Ok, my question: are there books or articles on verbal manipulation? What else has worked for others?
My favorite comment is did anyone call when i get alot of callers fallowed by there is know shame in folding when i have a big hand. These type of comments i believe have got me a few extra calls on occaissons, but like you said do not over use it.
in big bet poker, verbal manipulation may work but at limit, stick to optimal play
The game where I usually play is a 10-20 he , we are 11 at the table . 1 tight , 2 very tight , 4 will play ace anything or any suited card or any small connector or any pair but won't raise with crap , 2 good players who win most of the time and 2 who just play a little bit too many hands like Q7s or J9o or call a raise with A4s .4 or 5 people usually see the flop . That describe well the table . So if i'm UTG , I raise with AA ,KK ,QQ ,AKs ,AQs and AKo and I call with JJ(reraise if a bad player or the button raise) ,KQs ,AJs ,KJs ,A10s ,10-10 ,QJs ,KTs ,QTs ,J-10s ,99 ,AQo ,A9s ,KQo ,10-9s ,A8s ,88 ,AJo ,QJo ,9-8s . Anything else , I fold . Any comments ?
I have logged quite a few hours in a similar game over the last 4 years with the exception that the game is 10-handed. From my personal experience, I have found that I would most likely play the hands you describe but I would stop at the 10-10, and include 9-9, and possibly 8-8, and occasionally 7-7 depending on the texture of the game. If the game is extremely agressive, I would eliminate 7-7 and 8-8 for sure and possibly a few others. I most likely also eliminate KJs and A10s most of the time. I would also raise with JJ most of the time. I cannot deny that I may also play a few others on rare occasion.
The game I play in, many players see the flop and turn but fold on the river, it is truly amazing how many pots are won uncontested in the end. I have found that position in this type of game is vital and not having it is a huge disadvantage. I know this point is obvious but I think it is sometimes overlooked. I am not really sure which hands can be played profitably from utg in your game, but I do not feel you are giving much up, if anything, by eliminating some of these hands.
Just some thoughts...
Michael D. (Soccer/Sucker Mike D)
Under the gun I would raise with: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AKo almost all the time.
75% of the time I will raise with AQs or AQo'
I will usually just call with:
KQs-o, A-Js-o, 10's, 9's, 8's (maybe 7's). Of these I get into the most trouble with KQ, so sometimes if the game is aggressive I will lay this down, and sometimes I raise with it (I don't want to be too predictable).
In most situations (from UTG) I will not play Ax suited or not, I will not play K-J, K-10, Q-10. I will not play J-10, 10-9, 9-8 etc (suited or not). I may play KJ or QJ if the game is passive, and I am likely going to get in for a single bet. Note these cards can get you into trouble especially from UTG.
I feel your suited connector calls UTG are too loose. Also your broadway cards like K-10 K-J, Q-10 will often get you into trouble when the pot is raised. For instance if you flop a K with K-10 do you bet? If you are raised what do you do?
These are just my opinions. Like Rounder, I tend to not consider suited cards that much more valuable then there unsuited counter parts.
Derrick
Remember that Rounder never plays draws - so for him being suited is completely worthless.
In a loose game like the one described here, being suited is an ENORMOUS advantage. Anyone who overlooks this is missing out.
-SmoothB-
From JP's post:
"4 will play ace anything or any suited card or any small connector or any pair but won't raise with crap"
I think this lowers the value drawing flushes to small suited connectors - You hit your flush and some goofball blows up your 89s with Q3s. Big suited connectors are always good, of course.
This seems awfully loose to me, but the game you are in seems good enough that some of these marginal hands might be profitable.
I think hands like QTs, A9 and lower suited, JT and lower suited connectors, and QJ offsuit are CLEAR FOLDS under the gun. I might throw KT suited in there too. I don't think these hands make any money in early position and probably lose quite a bit for most players.
I would consider adding 77 or 66 when this game is passive because it seems loose enough to pay these hands off even in bad position.
I would also pitch KQ offsuit and possibly AJ offsuit if the game is aggressive preflop unless you raise with them yourself (and I really don't recommend that.)
That's just my 2 cents.
-SmoothB-
limp reraise with AA, KK, AKs, and QQ. Raise with JJ down to 99. Raise AQ and AK. Don't play small pairs and suited connectors.
I'm not sure my math is correct here. I'd appreciate any help and/or comments.
Assume a $10-$20 limit hold'em game. 1 limper and you raise with AKo. The BB and limper call. Pot = $60.00 (Subtracting a $5 rake)
The flop comes AT9r. Checked to you and you bet. Only the BB calls. Pot = $80.00
The turn is an off 4 and the BB bets out. Pot = $100.00
You reason that in this situation the BB will have you beat 50% of the time by 2 pair or a set. If you raise, he will re-raise you 100% of the time he has the best hand. Of the 50% of the times you have the best hand, he will fold to a raise 25% of the time and call the other 25% of the time. Of this last 25%, he will either bet the river when he improves, or pay you off with a worse hand 100% of the time.
Question #1: Are there enough known variables in this problem to make the optimal play?
Question #2: Should you raise the turn?
Question #3: If 'yes' to #2, should you also bet the river?
Thanks.
Kevin
I'm pretty new to the sort of analysis below and I post it mostly to see if I did it right. I appologize ahead of time for any mistakes.
Calling seems incorrect even though it is profitable. If he has you beat 50% of the time then if you check and call his bets to the river you win half the time and you lose half the time. Assuming that it will be checked on the end if you have him beat you win $140 half the time and lose $60 half the time (assuming you pay off his river bet). Calling is clearly profitable, you have an expectation of +$20, but this is not as profitable as raising.
Looking at the set of possibilities when raising in a bayesian network:
25% the time you win the pot right there. 50% of the time you get reraised and fold. Of the 25% of the time you get called after a raise, you will win and get paid off 22.3% of the time and you will lose 2.7% of the time(I'm assuming you don't pay him off when he bets on the river). I assumed that he has five outs (maybe he should have more).
The expectation for each of these is:
Raise, he folds (.25)(100) = 25 Raise/call/bet/call (.223)(140)= 31 raise/call/ he bets, you fold = (.027)(60) = -1.62 raise/reraise/fold (.5)(40) = -20
Total = 35.6
So your expectation raising is +$35.60 whereas with calling it is only +$20.00 so you make an extra $15.60 each time you raise. Notice if you call his turn bet and end up with the best hand and he will pay you off then your calling expectation is +$30.00 and the difference is only +$5.60, but still obviously raising would be preferable.
If you give him a few more outs then your raising expectation will drop by a bit. Likewise if you will always call his bet on the river when he has you beat you lose an extra $2.16.
Okay, now let me know where I screwed up!
Paul Talbot
Assuming that it will be checked on the end if you have him beat you win $140 half the time and lose $60 half the time (assuming you pay off his river bet).
You only lose $40 if you pay off the river. No? $20 on the turn and $20 on the river...
50% of the time you get reraised and fold
I did not say this opponent was predictable. You can't always fold, because you may have sufficient re-draws to beat certain 2 pairs such as T9 or A4. If you always folded, you are making it correct for your opponent to re-raise you with too many holdings. Correct?
Do these things affect your numbers?
Kevin
Oops! In the first instance I used the raise amount instead of the call amount, yes it should have been $40. This makes your positive expectation from calling $30, and $40 if you can get a bet on the end when you win (in which case you are better off than raising.
Your second point does change things and complicates them a lot. This is because you only increase the negative expecation long term by calling his reraise. Therefore you would call it only to keep him from running over you.
The actual value for calling and having to sometimes call when he reraises seems to make the difference between calling and raising much more marginal.
If your opponent will bet on the end wihtout the best hand then your best play is to call. If no then the choice probably doesn't matter much in the long run and you probably want to consider things such as your table image.
And I'm still not claiming to be error free!
.
Extremely wild Foxwoods 5-10, with full kill, 10 handed. I just arrive at the table from a must move that's only a bit less wild. About three fairly solid players at the table. Let me set the stage first with the first hand I see.
First hand is a kill, as are most hands at this game. Mid position raiser gets seven callers (I fold from the BB). Flop and actual hand are irrelevant. Early position bets, reraise from raiser, and four callers. Turn: early position bets; raiser folds; two callers. River: early position bets, call, call. Early position waits for another player to turn over his hand first, which he does. Fold, and early position bettor folds. Another player asks to see his hand. Early bettor says, "Why do you want to see my hand?" Response: "So I can learn what you're doing." (I shoot the guy who asked to see the hand a look; I had played with the early position bettor at the must move game, and within three hands, it's obvious he plays everything.) Early bettor flips over 9-3o--he hit bottom pair--and says, "I'm a f...ing nut, completely on tilt; what do you expect to learn from my hand?" His profile fits half the players in the game.
Question: Raising pre-flop accomplishes little; post flop raises eliminate the few conscious players. The three worst chase every hand to the river. I decide to forgo raising pre-flop with anything but AA; KK, AKs, and occasionally, QQ. I limp with AKo, AQ, and only play suited connectors late for no raise. Note that AJo, ATo, KJo are premium hands for these players, and they raise liberally with these hands and worse. I also play a few screwy hands, such as 74s and T9o on the button for one bet with enough callers.
How far wrong is this strategy?
I should add that I caught AKs and AKo about fifteen times and the high pocket pairs, QQ-AA about eight times. I showed down very strong hands throughout the night, and at least one maniac knew I was playing tight pre-flop and playing aggressively post-flop.
Thanks,
John
Well according to most of the experts on the subject your strategy is about right. I guess I am in the minority here but I still feel like I would raise with big slick every time against limpers regardless of position or game conditions. It is just too good of a playing hand and I want to force these guys who limp on junk to pay premium prices to take flops. About a third of the time I flop top pair/top kicker, about 5% of the time I flop a playable draw, and the rest of the time I may get checked to and get a free card or I can simply fold if I get heat with no pair, no draw, and no hand.
I pretty much agree.
Jim,
I agree regarding AK offsuit in back. But the advice to just call a large, "crazy" field makes a lot more sense with AQ offsuit, which is much worse since the additional worry of not having the best kicker when you flop an ace is not something you want since even bad players get dealt AK ;-). I'm guessing you would agree.
BTW, sorry I haven't contributed much to your great posts but I've been very busy and run down lately. I hope to get back on track in a few weeks. But my ring game play has gone very well thanks to you guys.
Regards,
Rick
Yes, I agree that against a large field limping in with big chick (AQ) is probably best.
P.S: We have been crippled without you. We need you to help resolve some differences of opinion that skp, one of my favorite posters, and I have been having as of late.
Jim,
I was just able to look and comment on some of those threads tonight. It wasn't my best work as I'm burning the candle at every end right now and am fealing the effects of just being worn down. I hope to spot post and do a bit more writing when/if things settle down for my family amd me.
Fortunately, my game is going well and I do have some interesting hands to post when I believe I'll be around the house to comment or provide feedback.
Regards,
Rick
John,
I’ve been so busy with more of the same old same old I hardly can keep up with lurking but since I can’t even muster the energy to move from this chair tonight I thought I would answer my good friends post for a change since it doesn’t involve beer toothpaste ;-). BTW, it is nice to see Mary posting.
When you say most pots are killed, I assume at Foxwoods killing is determined by pot size. At Ocean’s 11 in Oceanside, California, you have to win two in a row and that would seem impossible in a ten-handed game to happen “in most hands”. Correct me if I am wrong.
You wrote: ”Question: Raising pre-flop accomplishes little….”
In this type of game pre flop raises do little to define your OR your opponents hand (except the better opponents). So your raises should be for value with the assumption that they will be called and not narrow the field.
Up front this means raise with big pairs, AQs and better, AK (I agree with Jim Brier here), and maybe KQ suited. In back you should be raising and reraising with all big hands. In addition, raise with multi-way value hands unless you expect to face limp reraises that narrow the field. (e.g., QJ suited would be worth raising many opponents unless you thought an UTG limper would three bet driving out opponents). I would try to keep the quality speculative hands (e.g., 87 suited, Ax suited) at two bets versus many opponents rather than a cap with many opponents to keep your swings down.
Of course you can let others do the raising for you, but you can’t play trouble hands or hands that do not hit the flop hard. So I would avoid hands such as AJ offsuit and such. Note that small to medium pairs go way up in value since when they hit they often win. OTOH, compare a small pair to AQ offsuit (marginal in this game), which hits the flop more often but not as hard and doesn’t like too much post flop heat. Flop a set with 33 and you love the action post flop. Flop top pair with AQ offsuit and you will usually be scared post flop.
”post flop raises eliminate the few conscious players. The three worst chase every hand to the river.”
Post flop mostly raise for value. Don’t try to protect hands that are defenseless against a large field. Don’t even play them.
”I decide to forgo raising pre-flop with anything but AA; KK, AKs, and occasionally, QQ. I limp with AKo, AQ…”
Maybe forget about AQ up front. The rest are OK to raise with but also call with medium pairs and decent suited hands. Raise with hands such as AT suited and better in back along with other good suited hands such as the QJ suited mentioned above.
”and only play suited connectors late for no raise.”
You can play decent suited connectors, Ax suited, and suited one gappers with five or more opponents in back after a raise.
”Note that AJo, ATo, KJo are premium hands for these players, and they raise liberally with these hands and worse.”
They may be premium for your opponents, and you may see them win pots, but they are like cancer to a good player in this type of game. Don’t forget that for every time they win, they lose many bets in several other pots. These are not shown down.
”I also play a few screwy hands, such as 74s and T9o on the button for one bet with enough callers.”
I do like single gaps over two gaps by a lot. I’m also avoiding all but the better middle offsuit hands per the influence of Abdul. But for one bet it is close.
”How far wrong is this strategy?”
You are getting close IMO.
”I should add that I caught AKs and AKo about fifteen times and the high pocket pairs, QQ-AA about eight times. I showed down very strong hands throughout the night, and at least one maniac knew I was playing tight pre-flop and playing aggressively post-flop.”
As you know, most of us don’t give a shit about your bad beats but since you are a friend I’ll assume that you lost about 20 out of the 23 hands mentioned above. You have my sympathy.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Sorry, kill hands are determined by pot size.
Actually, this is not about bad beats. The high pocket pairs all held up nicely, except for a three way split with KK against two opponents with a board of 5-6-7-8-9. One held J8o and the other held Q9o and I had raised UTG. AK hit once, but since I limped with it most of the time, it wasn't a big loser. Limping up front with AQ proved more effective. I won about $400.00 at this table, with suckouts costing another three or so.
What I was most concerned with, though, was that in this game any piece of the flop called for a bet, raise or not.
I don't play KJo, ATo, and QTo for the most part, but these guys would raise with these hands.
I'm aware of the odds of hitting an A or a K when holding AK, but raising seemed crazy given the presence of 5 or 6 players in every hand agaist a raise.
BTW,
Hope you're feeling better; send me an email at home and let me know what's going on.
John
How come I never find games like this when I play at Foxwoods? :-)
(re: late position)(e.g., QJ suited would be worth raising many opponents unless you thought an UTG limper would three bet driving out opponents)
I sort of doubt anyone would fold in this game after putting in a bet, even if it's capped before it gets back to them. Maybe one of the solid players, but I don't see anything wrong with making THEM fold occasionally. :-)
Would a raise, or re-raise, on the button be correct for Axs here? It has fewer ways to win than QJs, but will win more often when it hits and is easy to get away from on a bad flop. How many opponents would you need for these kinds of plays?
David
David,
Many new faces in this game; and, I prefer to avoid this type of game, but there's not much choice, as I'm sure you know.
John
but there's not much choice, as I'm sure you know
Indeed I do. I sat in a 2-4 game a little while back that was exactly like watching moss grow on rocks for seven hours. The absolute opposite end of the spectrum, which is why I was envious of your wild game.
I wouldn't mind so much if it was just a group of tight players trying to better each other. But at this limit it amounts to everyone trying to take enough off of the rare action player to stay one tiny step ahead of the rake.
Hopefully some of those "new faces" will stick around for a while. :-)
David
Even the "goofs" quit giving action if someone plays too conservatively. I believe it is correct to raise and to make it three bets if you were going to call two bets anyway. This may be more true if you play with the same players regularly. I know that in the local 4-8 game I play I'm considered tight even though I play too many hands. Many in the game see the flop 80-90% of the time.
"I should add that I caught AKs and AKo about fifteen times and the high pocket pairs, QQ-AA about eight times"
Wow!
23 premium hands in ONE sitting on a wild table!? I haven't had that many great starting hands in my last 10 sessions!
With any luck at all you must have crushed that game.
I would not limp with AKo on a table like that. I would raise and reraise preflop with AA-JJ, and raise at least once with AKs and AK. If the flop misses your good hand and hits their rags, get out.
You mentioned you also played screwy hands for one bet.
Why?
No reason to toss those bets away when you are catching that many great hands. Besides, if the table is THAT wild, you can almost never be sure you won't be raised.
Many times, you catch enough of the flop to stay in only to get rivered by a garbage straight or Ace-rag or something. In the situation you describe, I muck the trash immediately.
It doesn't matter if you only play premium hands if no one is paying attention.
Actually, I played only a few screwy hands.
Let me give you one example of a typical hand.
Kill hand, so we're playing at 10-20. Mid position kill calls; the rest fold to me on the button and I raise with JJ. Both blinds, two maniacs, call. Flop: T-4-3 rainbow. SB bets, BB calls, MP folds, and I raise. SB and BB call. Turn 2; check, check, I bet. Both call. River: A. SB bets; BB raises; I fold; SB calls. SB: K5o; BB: 45o.
ROFL! Does that count as TWO bad beats?
David
This is not a bad beat story, well it is, because the hand actually happened to me, but that is not why I am posting it. I am posting it because I want to know if my calculations are correct. I am trying to figure how much of a favorite I was to win this hand.
Hand #1: As Ah How big of favorite is Hand #1? Here is my analysis, let me know if I'm right or wrong or missing something.
Case 1: Hand #2 picks up a non-diamond Ten or Jack for a gutshot straight draw on the turn. There are 6 non-diamond Tens and Jacks. Hand #2 then has 4 cards to complete the gutshot on the river.
Probability of winning = (6/45)*(4/44) = 0.0121212.
Case 2: Hand #2 picks up a flush draw without the board pairing. Any diamond except the Ace and 3, so Hand #2 has 8 cards to pick up a diamond draw on the turn. He then has 7 cards left to complete the flush draw.
Probability of winning = (8/45)*(7/44) = 0.0282828.
Therefore, since Case #1 and Case #2 are independent the probability of hand #2 winning is: Probability(Case 1) + Probability(Case 2) = 0.0121212 + 0.0282828 = 0.040404.
Converting this probability to odds I get 23.75:1 against Hand #2 winning, so Hand #1 is a 23.75:1 favorite, is this right?
In actuality, the Jack of diamonds came on the turn giving him a gutshot straight flush draw (10 outs => 3.4:1 dog, I think), and the Ten of diamonds came on the river to give him the straight and the flush.
Let me know if my math is right or if I'm missing something. I'm not positive that case one and case two are statistically independent or not, I tried to make it this way, but I'm still not positive. Thanks.
Hi Mark,
You're pretty close. There are a couple of ways to count it. Easiest is:
Number of two card combinations (out of 45 left) is [45 choose 2] = 45*44/2 = 990.
Number of straights and straight flushes = number of jack-ten pairs = 4*4 = 16.
Number of flushes and straight flushes = ways of choosing 2 flush cards from 10 left = 10*9/2 = 45.
Total is 16 + 45 = 61. Subtract 1 for counting the straight flush twice = 60.
KQs wins runner-runner 60/990 or 6.061%, giving odds of 1:15.5.
So, was the guy correct to call? Suppose the guy with KQ knew the opponent had AA without a diamond. Assuming he gets to raise the river and get called 100% of the time if he makes it:
Costs 1 BB to call. 45-16 turn "outs" = 29/45 or 0.6444 probability of losing on the turn.
Probability of hitting turn = 16/45. Prob. of then failing to win on the river:
___Turn card___
Non-diamond straight card = 6/45 with 40/44 kill cards, or 6/45 * 40/44 = 0.1212
Non-straight card diamonds 8/45 with 35/44 kill cards, or 8/45 * 35/44 = 0.1414
Straight flush cards = 2/45 with 12 good cards so 32/44 kill cards giving
2/45 * 32/44 = 0.0323
Probability losing on turn = 0.6444 Probability losing on river = 0.2950 Probability of winning = 0.0606
So to break even: KQs loses 0.6444(1 bet) + 0.2950(2 bets) = loses 1.2344 bets to win (x+4)*0.0606 bets where x = big bets in pot required to break even on the call.
Solve x+4 = 20.37 or x = 17 big bets makes it odds-on. That's 34 small bets, which ain't happening in a 10-handed game.
Therefore you got seriously sucked out on.
Q.E.D.
I haven't taken the time to review all of your analysis yet. Your methodology is different then mine. I don't think in terms of number of card combinations.
One thing I did notice in your analysis, after a quick glance is you didn't take into account the fact that the flush can come and pair the board simultaneously making his hand and locking me up. This reduces the percentage of time that he wins. I believe your calculation calculates the percentage of time that KQs will complete either his straight draw or his flush draw, but it fails to take into account the fact that it can lose even if it makes the flush (if it makes the straight it will not lose because both cards needed are different in rank). For instance, if the Ace of diamonds comes on the turn it gives my opponent the nut flush draw, but it also gives me quads so I would have a lock. Same thing on the river.
Intuitively, if you calculated 6%, then I believe my calculation of 4% is right based on the fact that you didn't take into account the board pairing.
Let me know if I'm wrong here (ie. did you take the board pairing into consideration?).
I thought the calculation took into account the board pairing because you didn't count the flush cards that pair the board. So the
P(KQ wins) = P(KQ makes a straight and not a flush)+ P(KQ makes a flush w/o the board pairing)>
This is = (15 + 8C2)/45C2
= (15+28)/990.
If you wanted to count the P (KQ makes a flush) and you didn't mind if you the board paired it would be 10C2/ 45C2.
Abdul, I read Theory of Sucking-Out today for the first time, and I think I know enough about your method to be dangerous... to myself, that is. If your way is as simple as it seems, consider me a sheep in your desert flock!
My problem is that I'm not getting the same results when I work through a hand with your method as I do with the traditional method. I'm curious about if and how you and Sklansky arrive at the same conclusions.
I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone else who understands your system) could walk me through two scenarios (using your process) which I grasp with the traditional method. These examples are found on pg. 49-51 in Theory of Poker. You may want to check the book to make sure I'm properly describing the hands.
1) 10-20 game. You flop a four-flush against a single opponent. $30 in the pot & its $10 to you. You plan on staying until the end. What figures to you use to make your decision?
2) 10-20 game. You flop a backdoor flush. $250 in the pot, an opponent bets $10 & its $10 to you. How do you decide to draw on the flop, and if you hit, then on the turn?
If you have any other examples, I'm more than willing to study them.
-Thanks_
I think Abdul tends to throw his chart away when playing in a heads up situation.
1) You flop a four-flush against a single opponent. 3 small bets, facing 1 small bet, you plan on staying to the end. You figure to have to call a bet on the turn.
Your chance of making your hand according to the simple desert nomad chart is about 16.5/47 = 35% (34.9676% is the precise figure). Actually the number in the chart was not 16.5 but rather 15.5, which I guess was a typo, and I just corrected it. Sklansky gives the figure 1.75-1, which corresponds to 36%. Rounding error? Maybe, but I think instead he's assuming you have seen the opponents cards, though he never states that - the precise figure in this case is 36.3636%.
You have to call a total of 3 small bets (one small bet on the flop and then one big bet on the turn.) The pot you'll win will be 5 small bets, so your effective pot odds are 5/3 = 1.6666 to 1. Now for the trick I mention in that essay: add one, multiply by your effective number of outs (16.5) and at least call if the result (44) is greater than the number of unseen cards (47). If you can count on getting paid off on the river, then the figure becomes 7/3 = 2.3333 to 1 effective pot odds, for a result (55) that indicates you should at least call (55>47.)
This is in agreement with Sklansky's conclusions.
2) You flop a backdoor flush. 26 small bets in the flop and it's 1 small bet to you. Assume you turn a flush draw. Assume your opponent will pay you off on the river if you make your flush. Then you should clearly call on the turn for 1 bet. Your EV on the turn is 33*9/46-2=4.4565. Now, back on the flop, first subtract our flop call out of that, since we don't actually win that bet: 4.4565-1=3.4565. Pretend the pot is 3.4565 bets, and we win if we turn a 4-flush. (This trick was suggested by someone on rec.gambling.poker, and it at least gives you some hope of doing an approximate version of these computations during a hand.) Should we draw for this virtual pot of 3.4565 bets? The EV is (3.4565+1)*(10/47)-1=-0.05 small bets. Sklansky gives an answer of -0.08 (-20/(25*10)).
Let's check my work by solving the problem another way: (10/47)*((9/46)*(26+2+2)+(1-(9/46))*(-3))+(1-(10/47))*(-1)=-0.05. So, Sklansky is wrong.
By the way, I use a mathematical shorcut in this post that I mentioned back in the thread on computing EV. For example, if you have a 55% chance of winning a biased coin toss for even money, the long way to compute your EV is .55(+1)+(1-.55)*(-1), whereas the short way is .55(1+1)-1, speaking in terms of "for one odds" instead of "to one odds."
-Abdul
Abdul wrote: But this is your worst case (winning) scenario, Siddhi Jalib, the effective pot odds are therefore better than that, right?
---
I already wrote:
If you can count on getting paid off on the river, then the figure becomes 7/3 = 2.3333 to 1 effective pot odds...
If you can get in a raise sometimes and get paid off, then the effective odds would be even higher.
-Abdul
Thanks for response Abdul. I think I understand, but the one remaining question is: Do I always ad 1 to the effective pot size, or does that number increase with the amount of players still remaining?
If it's not too much trouble, could you give an example where there is some raising throughout the hand and 3 or 4 players wil stay until the end? I just want to be sure about this before I take it to the tables this weekend.
Thanks again
Yes, you always add 1, as Steve Brecher has pointed out in the past. This is part of converting pot odds to your breakeven win probability.
Example:
Suppose you have an open-ender to the nuts on the turn, rainbow board. You figure your other potential outs are no good. Both blinds are in, and there has been a lot of action: capped 4-way preflop, capped 4-way on the flop, and now you check and it's 3-bet back to you by your 3 opponents. What should you do? Perhaps the board is something like T95 rainbow and you hold QJs in the big blind.
The current pot size is 22 big bets, but more importantly, you figure someone will put in the last raise and everyone will call, so that makes 28 bets. If you hit your straight draw, you'll get an average of maybe 4 big bets on the river, so that's 32 big bets effective pot size. Assuming you'll have to call a cap, you need to divide the effective pot size of 32 by 4 to produce the effective pot odds of 8.
Time for the trick: add 1 to your effective pot odds (8), and multiply by your number of outs (8), and if the result (72) is greater than the number of unseen cards (46), call.
Even if you assume a couple of your outs are no good, like if the flop was 2-suited and you think you're up against a flush draw, you can still call.
-Abdul
Playing full time, I am finding something increasingly difficult. It is maintaining my patience, not for the premium hands, but with stupid players makng incredibly stupid plays and winning. Just to give one example, I open for a raise under the gun in a 10-20 holdem game with KhKc. I am then three-bet by the button, whom I have never seen play a hand. We take the flop heads up. It comes out ragged and jack-high, and I check-raise. I get called. The turn is an offsuit blank. I bet and am called. The river is an ace, I check and call. He turns over A-Q offsuit. The important thing to put across here is that this beat itself did not bother me. What bothered me was the PRIDE with which this imbecile turned over his hand... as though it had been good all the way!! As though they give out hats for holding that hand!! He turned it over with an air of arrogance that made me want to bludgeon him to death. Any similar feelings out there??
Darren
i routinely turn over my rivers the same way.
brad
I know it is frustrating to lose to idiots but you really have to learn to avoid showing any emotion at the poker table. Simply muck your hand and keep quiet. Other players like to say things like "nice hand" or whatever but this is phoney and saying anything frequently alerts your opponents to how you feel. If necessary, go to take a walk or whatever you need to do to maintain your peace of mind. If this happens repeatedly over a short period of time, I recommend you quit the game if you are having trouble maintaining your composure.
Jim,
You wrote: "Other players like to say things like "nice hand" or whatever but this is phoney and saying anything frequently alerts your opponents to how you feel."
If it is possible, I agree with this statement 500%. A player may be a live one at the table but a success in his real job and knows when he is being mocked. These people can sniff out sincere versus bullshit almost every time.
Regards,
Rick
I say "nice hand" once in blue moon, and when I do believe you me, the sarcasm is slathered on. I can't believe people try to get that statement in sincerely.
It takes character and class to be able to say "Nice hand, sir/mam" in a sincere fashion. I always say it everytime I'm outdrawn by someone. I don't understand why you people can't say that phrase sincerely. I do it all the time. I guess I'm just a rare exception.
I can say "nice hand" sincerely because I really mean it. I love to see people play like that.
The only time I get upset at the table is when I play dumb or stupid.
"I like to see people play like that." I take it that, by saying this, you really are saying that you like to see people play BADLY like that. If this is the case, then, when you tell people "Nice hand", you're inevitably going to sound very sarcastic because now, you're saying one thing and thinking something else. Which means that you're not really sincere. You just think you are but you're really not. By the way, what percentage of the time do you get to be sarcastic and what percentage of the time do you get to be dumb or stupid?
Ah, what a suprise!
Pokerveteran deluding himself once again.
Sure, everyone thinks you are sincere. Just like everyone thinks you have "character and class" and all the staff loves you when you stiff them and all the other people in the world besides you are ass kissers.
Tell us some more stories. Make sure you are the central hero who gets the princess. We can't wait.
Hi, clown. Nice to hear from you again here at 2+2. I thought you had decided to totally eradicate poker content out of your life by converting full time to RGP for good. Have a nice day.
C'mon, guys, give the PV a break. We've gotten THREE posts from him in this thread without a single breakout of his classic smack: "vomitous mass." One more post with such restraint, and it's Guiness Book of Records time. All hail the New Age Poker Veteran!!
...and you're a butt-head, you stupid numb skull!!!
Thanks for the compliment. In an age where hi-technology has enabled private individuals like ourselves to express our views to thousands and thousands of citizens in a global forum such as this, it is indeed important that we hold ourselves to high standards of conduct, and to act with integrity and character in our expressions of our - and this especially applies to me - humble views. Again, thank you.
Bite me!
Vince
I think Poker Veteran is Canadian, or has just moved to Canada, eh?
Vince, I know, is from Joisey, or New Yawk, or somewhere.
Now Vince, don't dis me, or you might end up like the guy in the Molson Canadian beer ads. Canucks on the Forum know what I mean.
Darren,
When I saw this title I thought it was about saving your best game for when it is most important (I think it is insane to think you can give 100% all the time - if you can average 95% you are doing well in the real world).
When opponents make mistakes (BTW, I have seen worse mistakes) you should smile inside. I break into a nervous sweat when I don't see opponents making significant mistakes. I wonder if all the weak players quit and took up slots on the Indian reservations.
My advice is to work on your game as much as possible, play your best or close to it all the time, lose with grace, never critisize your opponent, and save your hand analysis for the forum or someplace other than the table.
Regards,
Rick
I only get upset when I play badly. If I over play a hand or realize after the hand that I should have known I was beat or I read a guy correctly and didn't act correctly on that read - I really get down on myself - thankfully they don't alow guns in casinos or I would have blown my brains out years ago.
:-)
Rounder,
You wrote: "...thankfully they don't allow guns in casinos or I would have blown my brains out years ago."
I haven't seen any metal detectors at the entrance. I think it is only a matter of time before we have a shooting inside a card club. That is one reason I don't needle my opponents ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I find it pretty interesting how there is this force trying to make me play bad poker after I get a beat like that. It seems like a ghost that is taking my hand, putting some chips in it and pulling it to drop them in the middle of the table.
It is very frustrating, but I think that with some will you can overcome the feeling. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth playing poker if you will get stressed about losing a hand.
carlos
This makes you upset?
He played terrible. He got married to a hand and kept calling when everything happening told him he was beat. He even seemed proud of it and would probably continue to play rotten.
This is great! With any luck, he will get some people at the table mad and you can win some of their money too.
Just make sure you are not the one getting mad.
A hand like this should lift your spirits, not break them.
You can't get mad at poor players. That where the money comes from. I get mad at the players who belittle poor player. When they leave the table they take their money with them and I have no chance to get it.
This is certainly more productive.
I'm sure you and I could think of other examples of playing bad hands that this, a guy who probably thought, or maybe just hoped (ignoring your pre-flop raise) that he had 2 overcards. Maybe he was just following the worst advice I've ever heard, "Never put your opponent on a hand you can't beat." Ok, it's a joke.
But let me just offer a humble observation that's coming home more and more to me lately. Poker is at its heart a game of EMOTION. We sit calmly at tables, friendly banter, but really not much talk, when inside each player seems to rage these intense emotions. Aggression, fear, envy, anger, greed. You name it. I'm not sure the authors I've read address this issue very much, or enough. Most players just call it "on tilt," but it doesn't very well describe what's going on. Even at the old 1-3 stud games I watched, you'd invariably have some college hot shot throw his cards at the dealer in disgust after getting rivered, and storm out after losing a total of 12 dollars on the hand.
So if it is a game of emotion, and it clearly is VERY emotional, just quietly so, I guess the key is to 1) recognize and tame your own emotions, as best you can, just like a new player must learn to tame his/her desire to play every hand and only play starting quality hands, and 2) recognize the emotion in other players and exploit it. If emotion is the game, then play the game. Always play your best game (you've heard this). This includes recognizing and PLAYING the emotion, your own emotion and the emotion of others, not tugging at the reins of it, trying to escape it. You understand and accept that you can't escape the reality of the cards you have, why are the emotional aspects any different?
Or, to quote Joshua, maybe "the only winning move is not to play."
Losing to a lucky moron is a matter of course. I played with a fool who straddled each time he was under the gun, and would then raise without looking at his cards!? Doing this he caught three flushes and three full houses in two hours. All the while he was sneering. The next time I saw him play his money evaporated.
The luck factor works in your favor: if they didn't win stupidly regularly they'd quit playing. This is what usually happens to bad players: they don't keep records so they keep playing until their lives are adversely affected by their losses. If they're rich enough they play and lose forever.
The embicile was completely outside your head. The stupid hand that the embicile turned over was completely outside your head. The PRIDE with which the embicile turned over his hand was completely outside your head. The embicile's arrogance was also completely outside your head. Don't worry about things that are outside your head. Focus instead on the things that are inside your head, like: your emotional state; your analytical skills; your creative tactical skills; your level of attention to the board, the chips, and the other players; your discipline; your planning skills; your curiousity; your ability to ask yourself empowering questions (how can I use this?, what can I learn from this?, how can I take advantage of this?, etc. The more you focus on improving and making better the things that are going on inside your head, the more control you will have in how you response to the things that are going on outside your head.
is genuinely feel happy for them.
i am not always able, but, generally, i bear no ill will towards people at the poker table, idiots or otherwise. i like to see people happy. this guy is happy. good. would you rather him apologetically turn over his cards and say, "i'm sorry. i got lucky. i just wanted to see if you had K's or AK. i wanted to know if you'd check raise the flop with AK. i didn't mean to win the hand." naah, let him enjoy it. and better yet, even though it is sometimes tough to do, enjoy him enjoying it.
scott
Darren -
You need to learn that in poker you have to accept the losses with composure. Most recreational players are going to chase anything to the river with an Ace in their hand hoping and praying. Deal with the loss and move on. Play your game and stick to it. I know its fustrating, but stupid players get lucky.
So, Darren what's so hard to understand? Aces beat Kings don't they. You full timers are all alike! If you want it both ways - have them call with weaker hands and don't have them call with weaker hands - I suggest you play with yourself. That way you will never get a bad beat. In fact playing with yourself is one way to ensure each time you get "whacked (off)" it is pleasureable.
vince
Since PV did not respond to you I will do so in a manner that might sound like him, but believe me this is for your own good:
GET USED TO IT YOU WIMP! You are playing full-time and you are worrying about things like this? Look at all the weak responses you got filled with analysis and suggestions. The only thing you really need is about 10 more beats like this in a row to start to get the idea. Get used to it or quit playing poker.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
make that 10 more arrogant beats like this. A few of them brain-dead slowrolls by the nitwits too. You'll get a chance to see what you're made of! If you don't relish the thought of rising to that kind of challenge maybe you should go back to being an ass-kissing 9-5er after all.
Are you ok,M?
PV, Thanks but no thanks for your concern. You are starting to sound just like all the other ass-kissing 9-5ers. Have a nice day.
M,
See "Trout Fishing in Slovenia" in Other Topics Forum.
What's the world coming to?
John
Im sure this subject has been posted before But I feel its my duty to post now.
I am an amateur at poker having just started studying it. On the other hand I have read posts on 2 + 2 and rge for a while now. I have noticed that there are a significant amount of intelligent poker players who complain of these "bad beats". It seems to me that the players who complain about these beats are a bunch of sorry crybabies. Are they looking for someone to blame for their dwindling bankrolls?
My main game is blackjack and in this game the 3rd base player's actions can effect everyone else's hands. The morons at the table always get mad at 3rd base when they cause other players to lose. You will almost never see the same morons thanking the 3rd base player when he makes a bad decision and it saves the table. Any player who ever picked up a book would know that another players actions have no effect on their hand! On the other hand in poker its jut the opposoite, the bad players are the reason for good players success. So why is it hard to be courteous to them when they get lucky and beat you? Poker players are often mean or not genuinely courteous to the bad players. Would it help if the bad player surrendered his money to you without putting up a fight? Maybe you can ask them next time and it will save you the time to post your "why me" messages.
Here is my experience that urged me to post. Before I started reading about poker I played a couple of times and delivered some bad beats of my own. One time while playing 3-6 HE I chased a flush to the river and caught it successfully. There was only one other opponent in the hand and he was trying to scare me out with 3 of a kind. I had no idea how much of an underdog I was until stupid ass told me. When I showed my hand he threw his cards down, got all red, hit the table, and said I was lucky. That got me thinking that maybe I better go buy some books. The session ended with me giving all my money back and thinking that I will have to study poker the same way I did blackjack to become a winner. I end by saying thank you to the hot head because he made me become a much better poker player.
Poindexter
Darren,
I believe that you conciously need to work on your mental toughness, and frankly I'm surprised that a full-time (professional?) player such as yourself is having trouble in this area.
You need to work on controlling your emotions, and indeed reversing them - thinking something like "Great I'm playing with a live-one!" whenever something like the bat beat you describe happens.
Furthermore, if you find you're having trouble dealing with these bad beats (as a full time player they must happen to you on a daily basis) then maybe poker isn't for you.
Sorry to sound so negative, but within the big picture bad beats are a good thing - you know this perfectly well yourself.
and above all let's not forget what we've all realized in our little hearts (consciously or unconsciously) at one time or another . . .
full time poker is a test of personal strength and a test of character, a fifth set at Wimbledon.
take those slow rolls, those smirking grins on the faces of the dummies who sucked out on you, roll with the punches, land on your feet, all those other feel-good cliches, and smile inside because you know in your heart that you will come out on top
Perhaps you are playing a serious game at $10 - 20 and some of the folks you are playing are just there to have fun? Maybe the $ limits you play at don't mean much to some of the folks at the table?
Only semi tongue in cheek, you might consider playing the lowest limits you can find for a while. After you get pounded by an amazing amount of garbage hands, you get used to it or maybe numb to it?
Mike
That's what you do !
10-20-HE..Some player are very supersticious ; for exemple someone told me that his favorite team is the 49ers , so he plays 4-9 suited or not , whatever if its been capt to him or not . If I was supersticious , I would never play anymore KsJs .Those 3 hands I have KsJs #1|I'm BB , there is a raise from a late position and 2 limpers before . The flop is Qh10c2c SB check , I bet , UTG call , middle position call , raiser raise (he has AA,KK,AQ,AcKc or QQ) he cannot slow play QQ because it's a dangerous board if he cannot improve his set of queen . The turn is a 9d giving me the straight , I rarely bet from an early position so I check and UTG bets , middle fold , raiser call ,SB fold I raise , they both call me the river is a 7c puthing a 3rd club on the board . I check , UTG bets ,raiser fold, I call he has Qc9C .360$ in the pot #2\Again I'm BB . Someone pre-flop raise .To make a short story the flop is 2-K-J rainbow I bet , the turn is a Q , I bet , the river is a A , I check the preflop raiser bets , I fold , he shows me Ah8h (there was one heart on the flop . #3/I'm UTG , I call , agressive player raise to my left late position call , I call . The flop is 2-K-K , I check , the raiser bet (I put him on a medium pair if nobody has the king , he doesn't want me and the late position to have a free turn and hit an higher pair than him ), late position raise , he's not a good player but won't raise with crap . he could have 2-2 , K-5 suited but maybe K-2suited , or something like that so I raise again because I suspect him to have a lower kicker than me . I could just call to trap the preflop raiser but is not idiot he won't call anyway because it,s obvious that me or the late position have a king because there is no straight draw and no flush draw possible . So he folds , the raiser re-re-raise , I call , I check-call until the end without to improve anything , he has AhKh . 230$ in the pot .
And a last one that I lose but was happy to lose but I would have loose more if I was not scared , I open with a raise from a middle position with KK , The button calls and both blinds call . The flop is 3s-5h-6h . Dangerous when both blind are in . it's checked to me , i bet , everybody call how they could call that , I suspect someone to slowplay something . The turn is a 5d (I know enought the 3 peoples in the hand to know that they are the kind to call the flop with the 2nd pair) .that is why I have the intention to check it ; BB bet , ok he has a 5 i have tought and maybe someone has allready a straight and someone could got ihis 5th heart on the river .If the SB checkraise that after I have call , I'll be in trouble . I fold , the turn was a 10 , The BB wons that with a full , 10-10 he has. Amazing , I would have lose it anyway . People didn't believe it when I said that I fold with KK .
This is pretty normal. It happens to everyone. If this is your first such session consider yourself a very lucky player. Last year I spent about 6 months experiencing sessions like that every other time I sat down.
natedogg
How can it bee easyer to get 22 in starting hand in Holdem then AA in (1on 221 hand)
its 4 AAAA and 4 2222 in a DECK ??? am i stupied ?
The odds of any starting pair is the same (1 in 221). The fact that some are worth more than others is arbitrary and not logical.
Poker hands are ranked in order of their relative frequencies, but within a group the high hands are not necessarily more difficult to obtain. For example, it is harder to get a flush than a straight, but an A high flush is actually easier to get than a 7 high flush, yet it is worth more.
(a post about KK losing on the river AQ catching an A)
(This is a long post and goes deep into dealing with fish in general and proper table attitude when playing poker with fish, and of course, the whole "nice hand" thing).
I've lost so many pots to a chasing Ax on the river with my big pairs that I honestly can't believe a so-called professional would even think twice about it.
If you really do play full time then I simply can't understand where you're coming from at all. A bad beat is a bad beat. Hell, I've sat at tables where I was getting killed so badly by the fish they actually counseled me to slow down with my AA and KK cause "they never win when you raise". They shake their heads knowledgably at my foolish raises with AA and act condescending to me. It's unbelievable.
I turn it into a joke and laugh with them. The best thing you can do when a guy puts a beat on you is to do more than just say "nice hand". Laugh with him! Don't say "nice hand". He KNOWS you think he's an ass. "Oh man!" you say loudly and slap your forehead. Big smile. "I can't believe you got me! I was counting that pot already!" Shake your head sadly and put a big live straddle out there (if possible). "I gotta make up for that one!". Encourage him to join you in that pot. "Come on, rematch! You owe me the action!". The next time you get dealt the trash hand that just beat you, play it and then show it to that guy if you can! "I had the nuts!" you say when you muck 68o. Laugh and smile the whole time. This is a GAME. These guys are here to PLAY and LAUGH. You will NEVER win money sitting at a table where you glare and grumble at everyone because they play stupidly. Hell, I've lost 5 racks in a 3 hour period playing agianst these suck-out artists. No, they aren't even suckout artists because they don't realize how far behind they are. Their entire thought process when playing a hand goes like this: "Is there a card in the deck that will give me a good hand?" If so, they stay in.
I know that this advice is hard to take during a losing streak. Believe me, I started playing poker two years ago and I've never been able to get back up to even from the get-go. I've lost a TON playing crazy low-limit with fish. For a while I was planning to write a poker strategy book in under 100 words: "Wait until you get a decent hand then raise. If the flop is good to you, keep raising. When the river comes, you can call or fold to the bettor but either way the pot is going to somebody else. Repeat until broke."
At first I had a hard time accepting the bad beats and a couple times I even mentioned to the suck-out artist that it was an incredibly stupid play he just made. That was just stupid of me.
Now I know the right way to interact with the fish and I'm winning more. I'm getting closer to being even finally! And you know what? poker is more fun! That's right. Cause the fish suck at poker but they're still people, and people are fun to hang out with. They are fun to laugh with. They tell good jokes. They tell amazing war stories. They have good business connections. They can talk football. They know of a good restaurant in town. They have stock tips.
I now truly believe that you have to like people to win at poker. If you are a surly curmudgeon sitting there grumbling and cursing at every lost pot, who is going to play with you? Who is going to give you action?
If you make the table a friendly, fun, and enjoyable game, it's much easier to win money from the game. People give away tells flagrantly when they are having a good time, relaxed, and enjoying YOUR company. It's sometimes hard to remember to do this, and it's a lot easier to do when you're not in the middle of a 1000 hour losing streak (Yes, I had a 1000 hour losing streak. so what? You think I'm a fish? ha ha. You raise with AA too much!), but it's the only way to play with fish. If you are a fulltime player and are a lifetime winner at poker, then you have really no excuse for reacting that way to a pretty minor bad beat.
natedogg
/
Yeah - At the Orleans Open I got so many AAs cracked heads up - on the 8th AA pre flop which I managed to get heads up we got all our chips in and I saw the TT my opponent had and just stood up and said - I gonna go play in a satellite good luck. Sure eneough a T hit the flop and I was a gonner but I knew that.
thanks for bringing up a much overlooked part of poker and thats your attitude towards the other players...be an ass you`ll starve... be a nice guy and you`ll flourish..
jg
I agree that this is a great post. And, I try to act just like you describe.
However, I still do not straddle in a limit game, and I don't play 68o outside the blinds. OK? ;-)
The rest of your advice, I will confirm.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Very nice post! You are right, you know. I was at a 4-8 game recently, and a particular woman was dominating the table, getting great hands, and playing quite well. I was across the table from her, but the seat to her left opened, and I grabbed it. I just wanted her to my right. So we started talking, I was friendly and nice to her, and we found out we both lived in Hawaii for a while. Suddenly she's my best friend, giving me advice on how to play, and basically teaches me how she plays over the next few hours. But the most amazing thing is that the very next hand we're both in, she bets on the flop, and I have a moderately good hand, so I reach for chips, and under the table, she smacks me, so I put my chips down and fold. Sure enough, she had flopped a set, ended up with a full house. She kept warning me under the table when she'd have a power hand. Best seat change I ever made.
And we're still friends.
I think you're on to something.
Damn, that's a hell of a tell!
nice, very nice
good to hear from a player who's coming from a benign direction rather from a hunt-out-the-table-with-the-saps-and-shoot-em-down attitude.
yes, we're all looking for the table where folks are having a great time gambling and the money is flowing, but it pays better to play with a little heart in your heart
Terrific post. I try hard to act so. It is quite difficult in the middle of a long bad streak, when a guy pulls an incredibly stupid play and sucks out on your large pot. But you must try.
and Rounder, last night in No Limit H.E. tourny final table, the button puts me all in from the small blind, good amount of chips. He has K-Q, I hav A-K. I start putting my coat on and say nice hand. He is laughing. Q hits the flop of course.
Laugh laugh laugh.
You do realize that this is cheating...
I wondered about that at the time, whether that was collusion or not. Is it clear that this is cheating? I never reciprocated, never encouraged it, and had no "deal" with this player for her to warn me when she had good hands. She did it on her own, and the signal was not pre-arranged.
Are you so sure it's cheating? And how do you know that? Serious questions, I don't know the answer for sure.
Well, would it be cheating if two people were playing against you that way?
That doesn't answer my question. I don't know if it would be cheating for one player to warn another player when she had a good hand.
To be cheating, it must violate some rule. What rule was violated?????
I don't know the answer, but so far, I see no evidence that you do either.
Flop: A52
Your friend bets with 22. You are about to raise with AJ when she gives you the old nudge nudge wink wink. You thank her with a pat on her rear end and fold. Meanwhile, the grouch downstream who hasn't cracked a smile since WW2 is foaming at the mouth with his 55.
You and your lady friend have just cheated the grouch of a whole bunch of dough.
Let me ask you this:
Suppose one of the players bent down to pick up his wallet or whatever at the exact time when the lady is playing footsies with you. He looks at you and says "hey, are you guys signaling each other?". What would be your response?
I bet it would be "what the hell are you talking about" or something a lot more colorful but along the same lines. In other words, you would hide the truth and that's because the truth would mean admitting that you are cheating.
The rule that you are violating is obvious: The only way you should know what another player holds is through your hand reading skills. Peeking over his shoulder, giving or accepting signals all clearly constitute cheating.
you haven't convinced me at all. I'm still uncertain of the answer. You may be right, but I don't see it yet. How does my fold, or her signalling my fold, have anything to do with the old man being cheated? Seems to me the better way to cheat him would be for me to raise, him to call, her to re-raise, me to re-raise, and cap it, and then for me and her to split the money that we re-raised him out of. It's a way to get around the betting limits when we have a great hand, collectively.
But the fold doesn't advance any cheating objective that I can see.
And sure, I'd be sheepish about someone seeing the signal, but only because I'd be nervous that they'd see it for something more than it was, as being a pre-arranged collusion, which, at least from my perspective, it was not. So what rule was violated? And maybe the answer is she was cheating, and I wasn't.
But what if at the table she announced that she had a power hand, and everyone should fold? Not cheating clearly. What if she muttered that to me under her breath? Is that cheating, merely cause she didn't speak loudly enough for everyone to hear?
There was no collusion, only a signal that was not pre-arranged.
I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't cheating, it may have been. But so far, no one has given me a satisfactory answer that convinces me one way or the other.
"How does my fold, or her signalling my fold, have anything to do with the old man being cheated?"
If she doesn't signal you, he makes more money as both of you would give him action instead of just her.
BTW, Greg does provide a much better example below on this point.
"But the fold doesn't advance any cheating objective that I can see."
Yes it does. You save money that you would otherwise have lost to the old man. You are stealing money from the old man.
"But what if at the table she announced that she had a power hand, and everyone should fold?"
Well, she hasn't here though. She is giving you info that she is not sharing with anyone else. In any event, announcing her hand to the whole table is also wrong though it may not necessarily be cheating.
I have seen a player at my game raise with AA UTG and then put his cards face up. That may not necessarily be cheating but it is still wrong (and obviously stupid to boot).
"There was no collusion, only a signal that was not pre-arranged."
So what if it was not pre-arranged. It amounts to collusion i.e. the effect is no different than what it would have been if you did pre-arrange it. Maybe you had no intention to cheat but you were a willing participant once the cheating began.
"I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't cheating, it may have been. But so far, no one has given me a satisfactory answer that convinces me one way or the other."
Well, I can do no better.
ok, I'm persuaded. I still don't know what specific rule was violated, but I can see now that it was wrong.
Thank you.
When you're in the pot and ready to bet or raise and another player warns you (openly or secretly) not to bet nor raise, then it is cheating!
You have not cheated the signalling player, because she voluntarily and willingly gave some of her EV to you. (This assumes that you abide by her "advise" and fold. This also assumes that she indeed had the nuts, because imagine if she had put a "play" on you on a sizeable pot! "Oh, sorry, I thought my big pair was beating everyone!").
But you may have cheated (and the probability is never insignificant) any other player at the table who saw you fold and did not have anymore the proper odds to call with his drawing hand - or any hand that needed at least one more callers in the pot to merit a call.
The only time that this is not cheating is when heads-up and the other player lays down and shows her hand before you bet, or she warns you openly not to put any more money in the pot. She's cheating only herself again, if she honestly holds the nuts. But we should all be suspicious of such "plays", even between seeming strangers. [Exception: avoiding the senseless increase of the rake when the pot is clearly going to be split, e.g. a board with quads and an Ace.]
If, after she warns you the first time, you do not warn her not to do that again and you enter future pots knowing that you'll be warned again is she has a strong hand, then the situation becomes much more favorable - and it is straight-forwardly cheating all the other players out of their potential EV. Even if you do not reciprocate the "favor", it is, clearly, competing as a stable, rather than like separate horses. This alters before-hand the mathematical expectations, irrespective of player ability ; ergo, cheating.
...A shot of Absolut may be in order.
Right?
She's telling you how to play your hand, thus there are 2 players determining how you'll play.
Also, here's a more likely scenario than the one supplied by skp. If she's betting a set, and you're folding 1 or 2-pair, you're taking money away from the person with the flush and/or straight draw who's calling with or without you. Since he'll win some 30% of the time, you're denying him 30% of your money when you would've called.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Maybe that's right. But she didn't see my hand, she assumed I had a weaker hand. If I had been on a good flush draw, or straight draw, with pot odds, I would have played it out against her to beat her. All she was signaling was she had a really good hand. So if she doesn't see my hand, but gives me a personal signal about the strength of her hand, does that violate the one-player per hand rule?
I probably don't know enough about the rule to be comfortable with the answer. But that may be right, depending on how broad the rule is. I always thought it meant getting specific advice on how to play my hand FROM SOMEONE WHO KNEW MY HAND. She didn't.
From the Guide to Casino & Home Game Poker Rule Book:
Collusion This is by far the easiest, and therefore most dangerous, manner to cheat. It is virtually impossible to catch players in collusion, and even more difficult to prove it.
The danger of collusion can not be emphasized enough. Collusion requires minimal skill and minimal preparation, but poses a great danger to the honest players at the table.
Collusion involves any number of players (usually two) silently working together at the table. Working together, these players can perform the following maneuvers: - One uses a signal to identify the strength of his or her hand to the other.
That should just about clear that up.
That does clear it up, and I won't do it again. Thank you.
10-20 HE 7peoples at the table I'UTG and I raise with AKo everybody fold until the BB who call . 2-10-K , he checks-calls me .Turn is a 7(noflush possible) he checks-raise me I fold .If I was an average player , I would have call until the river just to see what he has .He shows me 22. It's a terrible call in a 2way pot . My odd were better with 3-4o(Maybe i'm wrong). That was my intro and my question is : I'm BB with 10-10 .UTG raise (he raises AKs , AQs ,AA ,KK,QQ and JJ only and he very rarelly slowplay)everybody fold until me . Should I call ?
Sometimes I might re-raise to see where I exactly stand on the hand. If I peg him as a good player and he caps it I'll have to put him on AA, KK, QQ. I see the flop and if it doesn't fit, I fold.
If he doesn't cap it I figure it's probably JJ, AK, AQ or maybe even TT and 99.
Basically it plays out just like your example hand with the set of 2's. It's just that there's more information before the flop, which is crucial in this situation. But I could be way off base here...
~~stephen
You should call. The pot is laying you good odds against AK.
This is incorrect. See my post.
-SmoothB-
22 is a better hand than AKo heads up. And 22 is MUCH MUCH better to take against AKo heads up than 34 offsuit is!
If you think playing 22 against a raise is a horrible play, why do you think playing TT is any better against this tight preflop raiser??? Against all of these hands, TT is hardly any better than 22. So why chastise the BB who had 22 when you consider playing a hand that is hardly any better?
If he will only raise with these hands you have to fold. The odds are 24:8 or 3:1 that he holds a bigger pair than you do and you are a big underdog. And as for the remaining hands that he would raise with, you are only a tiny favorite. So muck em.
I am anxious to see how many people are going to disagree with me here, but I know I'm right about this one.
-SmoothB-
In your first example, if this is a $10-$20 game there would be $35 in the pot and it costs him $10 to see a flop. His pot odds are 3.5:1. With pocket Deueces he is about a 7:1 dog to flop a set but does he need to flop a set to win against only one opponent? Suppose you are the type to raise early with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK, or AQ. There are 24 ways for you to have a larger pocket pair but 32 ways for you to have just overcards. So he is actually about a 4:3 favorite to have a better hand. There are many flops where small cards come and he knows they don't help you (e.g.-553,753, etc.) which means that he will still have the best hand. Since he is half-way in I believe his call is reasonable. If the flop comes Ace-high or King-high he can get away from his hand when you bet the flop. Otherwise, he can check and see what you do.
In your second example with pocket Tens in the big blind, if the UTG only raises on AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AKs, or AQs than the UTG has 24 ways to have an over pair and only 8 ways to have over cards so he is a 3:1 favorite to have an over pair. I guess folding here might have some merit but how do you know the guy won't raise UTG with AK offsuit? I don't know of anyone who plays $10-$20 or higher who doesn't.
If you add AK offsuit into the mix, the decision is closer to calling, and I think almost all people would. After all you are getting 3.5:1 odds on the call, which would justify the call if there were no further rounds of betting. But since you will be forced to check and call if you get raised on the flop if he raises, and you will lose most of the time, and all future rounds of betting only give you even odds, I think you still have to fold preflop.
If I were the UTG player, I would raise any bet on the flop no matter which of these starting hands I had and no matter what the flop was. That would force BB to make a tough decision.
If I were BB with the tens, I think I would be forced to check and call to the river unless an A K or Q hit. And sometimes when a K or Q hit I will be folding the winner.
If you work it out I think it is clear that even when you add AKo into this mix you should fold preflop. But it is not as clear cut as the example posed in the original posting - that is a CLEAR fold.
-SmoothB-
If the flop is all small cards, the big blind should lead at the flop and call your raise. As long as an Ace or a King does not appear than the big blind will call you all the way down to the river because the pot odds are there to do so. Let us look at an example:
Pre-flop there is $45 in the pot.
The flop is something like: 772
The big blind bets his pair of Tens. You raise. There is $75 in the pot. It will cost him $10 more to call your raise. Another $20 to call the turn. Another $20 to call the river. This assumes that you will bet AK or AQ all the way. So his maximum investment at this point is another $50. There will be the $75 already in the pot plus another $50 of your money for a total of $125. He is getting $125:$50 ultimate pot odds which is 2.5:1. Now assuming you bet this way on AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK, or AQ he is a 4:3 favorite to have the best hand and he is getting 2.5:1 on his money. This is a huge overlay which more than makes up for the few times you hit a pair on the turn or river with your over cards. Furthermore, there is a chance he may spike a Ten on the turn or river and make additional money off you.
The big blind has an easy decision when under cards flop. He is simply going to stay with you all the way. He only has to win a fraction of the showdowns to have a positive EV here.
This is all true. But you have to keep all of this in mind when you decide to call the original bet.
Most of the time the raiser will have a better hand than you, and all future bets are paid off at 1:1. And even if the flop does come small cards and the raiser has AK or AQ, he can still beat you if one of his cards comes on the turn or river.
The point is that when you commit to the pot by calling that original raise with a hand that is more likely than not to be behind, you commit to calling to the river unless an A K or Q come, in which case you must fold. Once you GET to the later rounds you can think about the pot odds, but keep all of that in mind when you are putting that money in in the first place. Fold.
-SmoothB-
If the raiser will raise on AK offsuit and AQ offsuit than most of the time your pocket Tens will be the better hand. The only time you get burned is when you fail to flop a set AND under cards flop AND your opponent has you over paired. In all other scenarios you will have the better hand or you will fold when the flop comes Ace or King high. I am actually very comfortable in these situations especially when I am already half-way in and I am getting good pot odds to take a flop.
This was not the problem posed.
The original scenario was that the UTG player would ONLY raise with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, and AQs. A fold here is clear, and that was the scenario my posting was addressing.
In this case there are 24 hands that have you beaten already, and 8 where you are a tiny tiny 11:10 favorite. There is no question about folding here.
If you allow AKo and AQo into the mix, you have an entirely different situation. Now there are 24 hands that beat you by a mile, and 32 hands that you are a tiny favotite over. Now a call is in order, but ONLY because you are getting 3.5:1 odds on your call.
Let's take another scenario. Lets say that you are heads up with this player and you KNOW that he can ONLY have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, AKo, or AQo. You are playing no limit. The blinds are 1 and 2 dollars and he pushes in 10,000 all in. What do you do with TT here? You MUST fold!
If I really have to I will do the math for you but I was hoping that the answer would be more obvious.
-SmoothB-
Yes the original scenario was what you state and I agree that folding is clear. But I mistakenly believed you were commenting on my post where I stated that if a raiser will raise on AK offsuit and AQ offsuit which is the more common scenario that I would call everytime. To quote from your October 26 post at 4:04 pm:
"If you add AK offsuit into the mix, the decision is closer to calling, and I think almost all people would. After all you are getting 3.5:1 odds on the call, which would justify the call if there were no further rounds of betting. But since you will be forced to check and call if you get raised on the flop if he raises, and you will lose most of the time, and all future rounds of betting only gives you even odds, I think you still have to fold pre-flop."
But now I see that I snuck in AQ offsuit didn't I? Sorry about that. I was not trying to be deceptive here.
Let me re-formulate my question. If you knew the raiser would raise on AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK offsuit, and AQ offsuit would you call from the big blind with pocket Tens? If yes, then do you agree with my analysis stated in my previous post?
Couldn't an argument be made that if the raiser would raise with a larger range of hands, folding 22 heads up would even more correct?
If the raiser would also raise with hands like AJs,KQs,TT,and once in a while with ATs,QJs,JTs, and pocket pairs down to 77,etc., it now becomes more difficult to play 22 heads up, out of position with little implied odds.
= Raider
Note that in the example given here, it is actually better to have pocket 5's than TT against ANY of those holdings.
I'll leave it to you as a little puzzle to figure out why, although the answer is not difficult.
-SmoothB-
That's easy. Murphy's law, as applied against the raiser with the power hand, holds that a low 5 is much more likely to fall on the flop and be the cause of his unfair and angering demise than a moderately high card like a ten.
Of course, if you apply Murphy's law, the low-limit hold-em corrolary, to the caller in the BB, then if he calls with 5-5, a 10 will fall, and if he calls with 10-10, then a 5 will fall.
Which of course is why it's better to call with 5-10, than with either 5-5 or 10-10.
Well, you have more cards available to make a straight and it's easier to release 55 on the flop in all those cases where UTG has a bigger overpair.
That said, I know of no player who restricts his raises to the hands that are mentioned. And if there is such a player, he ain't exactly going to put the fear of god in you with his postflop flop. In fact, it becomes pretty easy to outplay him postflop.
Let's say the flop is Ace high. You know there are 18 ways he can have a big pocket pair and only 9 ways he could have AK suited/set of Aces. If he plays that tight preflop, you can easily outplay him postflop. That coupled with the fact that you are half way in is reason enough to call the preflop raise with TT against such a tight player. Of course, you also can flop a set.
In sum, if a rock such as the one described above raised, I would call with TT out of the bb every time.
skp,
I agree. I often see posts where the author describes the UTG raiser as raising with a very narrow range of hands. But I have never seen a player where I feel I can be that sure. And if there was one that was close to this his post flop play should be so formulatic that you should be able to gain ground even when he is ahead but doesn't hit the flop hard.
Regards,
Rick
Again this seems flawed.
Let's say that you believe that this player will only raise UTH with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, or AQs. But you also know that 10% of the time he will raise with another quality hand other than these, like AKo, AQo, KQs, TT, etc. If this is the case you must still fold. Do the math and you'll see that I'm right.
I with S or M would put their 2 cents in and bail me out here.
-SmoothB-
You are wrong. And your logic is flawed. Specifically,
'If he plays that tight preflop, you can easily outplay him postflop. '
This makes no sense to me.
In some games where people don't respect my raises and call with their KJ offsuit anyway, these are the only hands I'll raise with UTG. And you can bet that most people can't outplay me postflop.
-SmoothB-
I am talking in generalities here.
All I am saying is that a player who plays so tight that he will not raise preflop with AK or AQ will generally also play very tight postflop and be susceptible to being pushed off pots.
It is a rare animal (in fact, I have never seen one) who will only raise preflop with AQs/JJ or better but then pay off on the flop, turn and river when an Ace falls and he has KK,QQ, or JJ.
The mistake I think you are making is that you are assuming that this fellow who plays weak-tight before the flop will suddenly shed his skin postflop and don the coat of a solid player.
I think we can agree that a player with such tight preflop raising agreements does not have a chance in any semi-tough game and is therefore not a solid player.
Last sentence in the above post - "agreements" should be replaced by "requirements"...that's what happens when you are posting on the Forum while drafting a settlement agreement at work. I better double check that agreement to make sure I have got nothing in there about preflop raising:)
Nope I think you are wrong.
Personally, at least 90% of the time when I raise UTG, I have AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AKo, AQs. Sometimes I won't raise with AQo or JJ UTG. I am not weak tight. I am good at reading people and I will pound you if I detect that you are trying to bluff me.
I get away with ONLY raising with these hands because I know that people will call me anyway. All very well learned players realize that there are VERY FEW hands that can be played profitably from early position. If you know that, then you will be playing very few hands UTG.
You would also realize that there are very few hands that you can raise with UTG with positive expectation. Those hands are pretty much limited to the ones I raise with.
Now, the issue of deception comes into play. So every once in a while, I will raise with something else - heck maybe 1 time in 1000 I will raise UTG with JTs or 88. This is not a positive EV play. The thing is, if you do something, say, one time in 100, people will THINK that you do it at least 1 time in 10. People are dumb.
I never have any problem getting action from my raises, because most get so excited when they look down and see AQo that they are coming anyway.
If the day ever comes that people start catching on maybe I'll losen up and raise with more hands more often - but until that day comes I'm not changing a thing. I'm happy with the 3 BB per hour I've been making in 10-20 and higher over the last 150 hours.
-SmoothB-
Well, you are that rare animal who has such tight preflop requirements and yet play well after the flop.
But since that is not how most players play, I would still call with TT. Just identify yourself if we are in the same game if you will and I can get the hell out of your way:)
There is a good reason why I don't give my real name here. I have played with several regular posters here and don't want anyone catching on or being able to pigeon hole me. :)
-SmoothB-
"Personally, at least 90% of the time when I raise UTG, I have AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AKo, AQs."
Well, your requirements are drastically different from the player described by the original poster. In fact, they are pretty close to how most players play UTG except that many would add AQ and JJ.
So, I am not quite sure why we are having this dialogue.
Are you saying that I am not successful in semi tough games? Would you like to compare notes on how each of us is doing?
I've only been playing this darn game for 11 months and I'm a ample winner at 10-20 and higher. I make most of my money from the guys that raise too loosely before the flop.
-SmoothB-
See above post i.e posted at 4:48 p.m.
Sure, you could be doing very well but it's not because of your tight preflop raising requirements, it is in spite of them.
"in spite of them" should be "despite them"...that's it, I can't write any more today...I better get a junior to finish up that agreement before I get sued for professional negligence or something.
Are you saying that I am not successful in semi tough games?
Yes. I'd be willing to say this.
I don't mean to be cruel. I've been following this thread and you make some good points. But the fact of the matter is, you are likely making money in these games because your opponents are not good enough to throw away hands that would be marginal to your raises. You've already stated yourself that you will often get called by AQ, et.al. In addition, they are probably not good enough either to be able to get a good read on you, or know what to do if they did. Therefore, these would not be considered semi-tough games.
= Raider
You're wrong.
-SmoothB-
Case in point - YOU are one of the players I can count on to call me with inferior hands even though you know that I have you beaten. So why should I raise with less? There seems to be nothing to gain from deception in such a case.
-SmoothB-
It's a trick question. While 55 can make three more straights then the 22, you are overlooking the deuces never looses axiom.
To quote Billy Madison, "Got anymore brain busters?"
I only raise with these hands UTG myself. It doesn't matter - even decent players will find some rationalization for calling me anyway. I still can count on action when I do this so there is no reason to try to be deceptive.
Let me ask another question and we'll see how you do with this one:
Which situation would you rather be in? You must choose from these 2:
Would you rather call a large all-in bet when you have TT and you know the raiser has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, or AQs?
Or would you rather call an all in bet with 72 offsuit when you know the raiser has AKs?
You are better off calling in the second situation. If this seems ridiculous to you then you need to study some more.
-SmoothB-
Next weekend I'm going to Vegas. Can anyone tell were I can find the best low to middle limit hold em games(e.g. 5-10 or 10-20) Thanks in Advance!
Mirage, Bellagio, Binions and Orleans are the only place for great poker in vegas, all limits all games...
Hi everyone--
This question has been bugging me, and i was hoping someone could shed some light.
Example: I have Q6o in headsup play. I bet $1 on the whole hand, as does my opponent, and am compelled to go to the river, as is my opponent with his random hand. My stats tell me my Q6o will win 51.1% of the time.
I calculate the ev of this play over 1000 games as follows...i win a $2 pot 511 times for a total win of $1022. I lose $1 489 times for a total loss of $489. Hence, i have a $533 profit per $1000 wagered, or an ev of 5.3 cents for every dollar.
My sims show that this hand wins, when it wins, with a no pair 19.2% of the time, a pair 45.9%, 2 pair 22.8%, trips 4%, straight 3%, flush 1.8%, fullhouse or better 2.4%.
However, I don't think that this has much to do with how the hand would do in a real game. For instance, I probably wouldn't play to the river in a real game with only a queen-high 2 outer, and it would depend on the situation whether i'd play after pairing the 6. This would seem to affect at least 42% of the time this hand would win, substantially lowering the real-world ev of the hand.
How do i turn the corner here and predict actual results for a hand like this? I've picked Q6o, which seems to me to be the most marginal headsup hand I can find. Do I run the results through the manner in which I'd play the hand, recalculate my win percentage accordingly (i.e. this hand's winning percentage would be something like 29.7 in the case of a blanket decision to never play the queen high or paired 6, and lower still (i think about 17.8) if I expected the queen or draw to come on flop to avoid continuing with nothing, plus the pots that i could pick up on aggressive betting.
Is there a reliable fudge factor that says something like "a hand must win x% of its headsup showdowns against a random hand to account for the times that you would fold the hand in real life"? If not, what direction would i go in to compute such a thing, other than figuring what i'd do in each situation and adjusting the ev appropriately?
thanks...all replies, including "it's stupid to think about that" appreciated.
You can't win $2 when you win, yet only lose $1 when you lose, if each player is putting $1 in the pot. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
gosh, you're right. so is the correct calculation the one i had in the first post (ev .041 per dollar) or is it:
win 1 511 times - +511 lose 1 489 times - -489 net win/1000 hands $22.00 ev/dollar-.022?
What you have simulated is situation were one player is all-in with posting of the blinds and therefore no additional betting can happen. This is not useful in the real world. The ‘true’ value of this hand is much different because your opponent will not play any random had the same. He will raise with better hands and fold with the poor ones.
I prefer HE poker, but sometimes the big cards never come, after about 3 or 4 rounds and if I never get any playing hands I switch to Stud H/L or omaha 8
I have noticed that some days thoes little card will stick with you all day. Has any one else noticed this.
Coyote
Well you know , if you show me scientifical explanation of that , I'll sell my house , my car and my microwave and I will send you a generous subsidy for you to write a book about your theory.
Coyote,
The little cards will only stick to you if you put some honey up your sleeve.
In all seriousness, one hour of junk cards is nothing. Work on your patience and understand that it is possible to have "run bad" for the last hour/day/week/month/year but it has nothing to do with how you lucky you will be in the next hour/day/week/month/year. In other words, there is no such thing as "running bad" as if it is something you should expect to continue into the future.
That being said, most players lose their discipline and courage when having "run bad" for a while, which makes it more likely that they will start "playing bad" on future hands. Don't be one of those players.
Regards,
Rick
I have noticed that bad cards do tend to run in streaks.
I have also noticed that changing games or tables has zero effect on how the cards run. Furhter, the 'cold' streaks tend to end suddenly and without warning.
Take last night for example, I am playing 3/6 and the cards are running HORRIBLE. Bad starting hands and the quality starting hands I do get go to hell on the turn and river. Opponents chasing me down with runner-runner straights and flushes. 5 or 6 cracked hands later, my buy in of $100 is gone.
I buy in for another $100 and immediately get AA 3 out of the next 4 hands. I jam them all, they are all good and I am in the plus column for the session 4 hands after buying in again.
The third AA was great, one of my opponents hit a set of 10's on the turn but slowplayed it and an A fell on the river. He "pounced" after I bet the river. Ended up with a nice win.
I guess my point is that a table, deck, setup, or game change was not going to help any. I have realized I need to pay attention to the type of game I am in instead of worrying about how the cards "run". I was on a table with a few loose players and I just needed to wait for the hands to come, then play them very fast.
The cards are random. While there may indeed be some days where, when the day is done, you can say to yourself 'gee, I got dealt more than my fair share of little cards today', you can't expect to CONTINUE getting little cards.
-SmoothB-
Last night I was sitting next to a solid, creative, winning player, call him Joe. He sat out for two rounds and stayed right there at the table. The dealer got up, a new dealer sat down, and Joe took the big blind. Then he commented that the dealer who just got up "Always kills me."
I called him out, half in fun. "Joe? Are you superstitious?"
"No." He grinned.
"And you think that dealers make a difference in your potential win or loss?
"Well, uh . . . "
"Let me see if I have this right. You are not superstitious except for when you ARE superstitious?"
"Yes. You've got it right." He laughed.
I was yet again baffled by 'spirituality,' or whatever you call that quality of humans that allows for blatant contradictions that have no rational defense and apparently don't need one.
Tommy
In bridge there is some popular wisdom that says, "If you make all the slams you bid then you aren't bidding enough."
I was wondering if this can be applied to poker in that if you win all your showdowns then you're not showing down enough, or the reverse, if you never lay down a winning hand then you're not making enough laydowns.
Comments?
JayNT,
There are analogies but I’m going to use different terminology
For example, let’s say I am up against a lone opponent on the river who probably has a made hand rather than a draw based on the way the action has come down so far. Of course if I am playing well I will usually have a better hand in this spot. (Note: An exception would be when I was able to drive out (on an earlier street) many opponents with a probable second best but not hopeless hand and I am shooting at a lot of dead money.) When I bet the river against an opponent who will probably call I am betting for value.
Now some of these decisions are close as to whether you have the best hand or not. When you think it is close you should believe you have the best hand a little more than half the time in order to bet (55% is about right). This accounts for the times you get raised or checkraised and are faced with a tough decision as to whether or not you should call. (This is straight from the TOP or HPFAP if memory serves me).
Based on this, some might conclude you should win about 55% of the time when you value bet the river. This is wrong for the simple reason that many or even most of your value bets are not close. In other words, many of your bets on the river are made with a much stronger hand than your opponent. You expect to get called by your weak opponents and you expect to win a vast majority of the time. So, if someone’s OVERALL value betting win percentage on the river is 55%, then he is value betting WAY too much since he would often be betting for value in situations when the chances his opponent will call with a worse hand is much less than 50%.
There is also the decision to call a bet on the river when you are pretty sure you are beat but there is some uncertainty. If you almost always make laydowns here, you will seem to make the right decision most of the time, yet you will cost yourself money if the pot is large. On the close decisions, you only have to be right the amount of times dictated by the pot odds. But some decisions won’t be close. Let’s say the pot has twenty big bets but you have a one in ten chance of winning. You give up an awful lot if you almost always fold here even though it will “seem” right nine out of ten times.
Then there is the river bluff with a total bust. Most of the time it will fail, but when it works, you can win many bets. At the same time, you should not fall into the trap of bluffing too much. For example, let’s say you are going to be faced with a situation one hundred times in the next year or so where you have a bust against a lone opponent on the river and your only chance to win is to bluff. For simplicities sake, let’s say the pot contains ten big bets each time. For this decision, you only need to succeed one time in ten to show a profit. But there will be many times when the pot has the same ten big bets and your chance of success is 25% or so. By this logic, you should have an overall success rate much higher than what would be indicated by pot odds alone. If your rate is about even with what pot odds would dictate, then you definitely threw in some almost hopeless bluffs with your good ones.
I hope this helps and was not too boring. But writing this is putting me to sleep, which is what I need now anyway ;-).
Regards,
Rick
That is everything I know about bridge ; Bridge is the same thing as conjugal ' life : If you don't have a good partner , you need to have a good hand .
I live by this princliple and use it as the benchmark of my skill in poker.
-SmoothB-
I really hate to ask what is probably a stupid question, but what exactly is a kill pot in Hold'em? Thanks in advance.
Mike,
Only answers can be stupid so don't worry about it. A kill pot is usually played for double the stakes and the "killer" has to post a double sized forced bet. The killer can either act in turn or have last action before the flop. Then the action can commence in various ways depending on the rules of the cardroom but in general the action before the flop is completely out of control as few players act in turn or in accordance with the rules.
To qualify for the kill one may have to win two pots in a row (e.g., Ocean's 11) or win a big pot (Foxwoods). Normally a kill is used in Omaha H/L (and used to be used in Lowball) but in some places it is popular for other games. Thank God we don't have kill holdem games in Los Angeles.
Regards,
Rick
P.S I'm relaxing after a good day at the tables and have had three glasses of wine so I apologize if this makes no sense.
Your answer makes perfect sense. Thanks for your response and congratulations on your successful day.
Mike
1/2 kill means the limits go up by half. Full Kill means they go they double. In split games you usually have to scoop for >5 Big Bets to qualify. In HE (where you have to win two pots), there is usually no qualifier. And in CA, the kill blind plays for the time charge.
The kill game at the eldorado in reno was the only good HE game I'd found in the reno/tahoe area, anybody found another?
Kill Pots: "winner leaves it in -- the killer posts a double blind (or three-quarters of a double big blind) in addition to the regular blind(s)." Kill Pots in LoBal -- nicely explained by Rick, i.e., the pot is killed after one player wins two consecutive pots. The stakes generally double in killed Lobal pots. Good Lobal players seldom kill pots, but like to participate in killed pots when they are delt a good hand. That is good lobal players after winning a pot avoid playing the next hand unless they have an excellent starting hand and good position. ---------------
Flop Games: Killed pots in games like Omaha split hilo 8 qualifer; holdem hilo, or crazy pineapple"split hilo":
In these games, pots are killed when a player scoops the pot and the pot total exceeds some prescribed amount. Most players want the "kill" in the game -- especially poor or action players. At a typical casino in the LA, CA area; for a $3-6 Omaha HiLO 8 game, a scooped pot must contain $50 in order for the next "played" hand to be killed. ---- When killer acts after deal in lobal or before flop in flop game: In the past the "lobal killer" was last to act after the deal and before the draw, but acted in turn after the draw. In flop games in CA, the "Killer" now usually acts in turn -- this "acting in turn" was initiated because raised and re-reaised was confusing, hard work for the dealers, and slowed down the game.
They usually have a 1/2 kill in the $10-20 hold'em game at Harrah's in East Chicago,IN, and I play this game whenever there is not a decent stud game going. One question is - what is the purpose of having the kill? From what I have observed, the games are rather loose with a lot of calling, but I don't know if that is the effect of having a kill or if it is just the players. Is the kill suppose to generate action? Also, who has the greater advantage in kill pot games - the good player or the poor player hoping to get lucky?
very curious as to the most popular game in vegas is after holdem and seven card(if stud even comes in second).Wishing very much to broaden my skills and take on another specialty..
ron
$$$
Here my comments: - Omaha games seem to be real lucky games, too much variance, (too many times I've seen AA double suited becoming last hand...)
- Hold'em especially in the limit games (except very high limits and in shorthanded) seem "The battle to extract money from fish players".
- SEven card stud and better 5 card stud are more complex since every player has own cards and the study during a hand is focalised over own hand and opponents' hands.
What do you think about?
Isn't every game a "Battle to extract money from the fish players"?
The best poker game is the softest game, i.e., one where there is a lot of calling going on, but not a lot of raising. You, as a good player, will have stricter starting requirements than the rest, and therefore are more likely to have the advantage when you do get involved in a hand, etc. etc.....
I like middle limit stud or hold'em (not much Omaha in the cardroom I frequent, so I haven't played it much)and I will play one or the other based on which is the best (softest) game.
That much said, I do prefer stud because I am more familiar with it, and better able to take advantage of the weaker players.
#1 The biggest pot I ever won without to have the hand on the river. 10-20 HE , 11 at the table---The game is very passive , too much peoples are on the flop , and many could call the flop with the 3rd pair or with 3 of the same color . I'm on the button with 5c-6c .4 limpers and cutoff seat raise , ok I call and SB calls, and BB re-raise (BB play well before the flop , won't raise craps )everybody call including me . Flop come :3c-4s-9c ; very good , I have 2 draws .There are 12 Big Betsin the pot BB bets one fold , 4 calls , I raise ,SB folds and everybody call me .24BigBets in the pot .The turn is a 5 of spade. which doesn't help . It's checks to me , I bet hoping to have a bigger pot, and think ing that they won't call me with if there are 3 clubs on the board . Only the BB (with is big pair calls me) . (26BigBets). The river is a 9 of spade wich gaving me nothing . he checks his big pair and I bet ( that is the only way I could take pot , he fold , I have to show my bluff because there was someone all-in since the pre-flophe has nothing. BB was not happy ; I was .That hand shows the power of the position .
#2 It's hard to bluff in a low limit with beginner at the table. I'm BB with nothing 3-8 off the flop is Ah-Ks-10S and it's been checked . Those beginner know that they sould bet the 4colors and the top-pair . the river is a As . it's check to me so I Bet (those begginer , whatever theve have , they will put me on a triple Ace or the flush without to realize hat I didn't bet it ), a woman at my right call me and nobody else. The river i s a blank She checks-call me , and open K-4off , she wins .
#3 In a casino 5-10. The game is very passive . I'm BB with QKoff and the board is this one Jh-10c-2h_4d_Ad . I have the nuts . I check from my early position . The button is the better , (he has raised the flop ).I raise he calls I show the nuts , he tells me you win and throw his cards , I ask to see : 8h-9h .So , my question is : " HOW COULD HE CALLS MY RAISE ? ? ?" , oK , has the position to try bluff but he cnnot call with nothing , thats a terrible call . 80% the random hands beat him . Ok he has a good flop but now he has nothing but air. That confirm one of my theory about Poker : " You rarely make a bad fold , a bad bet or a bad raise but to often you'll make a terrible call!"
To many, "outplaying" simply means "bluffing". This is an oversimplification. Often, "outplaying" has nothing at all to do with bluffing.
I define "outplaying" simply as making more correct decisions than your opponents. In other words, if you make the 8 poker mistakes that Sklansky talks about at a much lower rate than your opponents, you will have "outplayed" them.
Even in such games, I think the most common mistake a good player will make is "calling when he should raise" particularly on the turn (see point No. 2 below).
So, how do you "outplay" your opponents in low limit poker?
Obviously, books have been written on the subject but here are what I consider to be some of the more important aspects. They are set out in no particular order.
1. Position
Many people say position is not every important in low limit because "they are going to call anyway so you can't really use your position to steal pots". Hogwash. Position is still a huge factor because you will often be playing 5 outers in such games on the flop and you would like to seek out that 5 outer cheaply or not at all. Note that in this context, "position" does not just mean where you are in relation to the button but also where you are in relation to the most likely bettor on the flop.
For example, if you have a hand like AcTc, you may have poor position even if you are on the button if there are a couple of limpers and the cutoff seat raises. On the other hand, if UTG raises and there are a couple of coldcallers, you have good position with AcTc.
The same can be said with a hand like 77. If you coldcall a raise from your immediate right in a multiway pot, you stand to make less money postflop even when you flop your set because only the preflop raiser will have committed his money into the pot before you raise.
Another obvious advantage of position (i.e. in relation to the button) particularly in unraised pots is that if you hit the flop hard, you can more easily double the pot with a raise on the flop.
There are lots of other obvious advantages of position. The point is that those who say that position is not very important in low limit hold 'em are wrong.
2. Turn Raises
You will often have to employ the tactics set out in HPFAP 21st Century editiom concerning delaying your raise until the turn. Flop raises rarely thin the field; turn raises are much more effective in this regard. In fact, no matter what the limits, when there is a multiway pot, my flop raises are usually done for value while my turn raises are usually done with a view to limiting the field.
In sane games, it is "fit or fold" on the flop. In games where there are lots of loose playing going on, it is "fit or fold" on the turn for most players (although you should not fall into that trap). Accordingly, play on the turn becomes more important than play on the flop.
3. Value betting
There will be lots of suckouts in this game but that should not deter you from making lots of value bets at the end. That's one way of recouping some of the money you will lose to the suckouts. Often, if you manage to get it headsup by the river, you should consider betting second pair for value because they will pay you off with bottom pair on the board.
4. More position
Do not call with marginal hands (i.e. 5 outers, gutshots etc.) when the bet comes from your right. Save those calls for when the bet comes from your left and preferrably where your call will close the betting.
5. Starting hands
Play hands that make big hands and are easy to release on the flop if you miss i.e. pocket pairs, Axs (although you will have to play Axs well if you flop an Ace). Stay away from playing big unsuited cards such as KQ etc. except in late position in unraised pots.
6. Bluffing
While you should bluff and semibluff less, do not abandon these tools altogether. They can still be effective weapons even in such games.
I tend not to semibluff when there are 3 low cards on the flop. Most of these guys will call with one overcard. With 2 overcards, they are not going anywhere at all. Be selective with the flops on which you semibluff.
7. Discipline
If you are prone to tilt, you will have a lot of difficulty beating such games. You could go hours without winning a hand. That's the nature of the game. You have to be patient.
Well, there's lots more...perhaps others can add to the list or expound on the above.
That's great, skp. I'm going to have to print that out.
While you should bluff and semibluff less, do not abandon these tools altogether. They can still be effective weapons even in such games.
Be careful with this. Prefer to semi-bluff on the TURN. Prefer to semi-bluff heads-up. If you semi-bluff three-way make sure it's against the right people. Or at least that's what I would do...
What do you suppose the chances are that there are two Davids on this forum, both with Ph.D.s in biology? ;-)
David
I would say the chances are about 100%
Regarding waiting until the turn to raise:
I am finding that waiting until the turn to raise does not help me much. Loose opponents get a draw on the turn and stick with it. I find the ones that do fold to a turn raise would have also folded to a flop raise.
Worse, often they get two-pair or their small pair trips and you get reraised. Ick.
Raising, or even better, checkraising on the flop has served me much better than delaying to the turn. That's just my experience though, there are merits to both.
I am the complete opposite of you, I can do very well against 3/6 hold em players, but 2/4 stud is pretty much a crapshoot to me. Basically deal out the hands, turn em over and see who won.
I find it very difficult to get a read on opponents stud hands because they all just call no matter the strength of their hand. Even cold calling raises! No problem, they just add another bet to the one they already have poised to throw in there.
They raise on the river when they catch their miracle card, of course, but by then the pot is often so big it's tough to lay down a decent hand.
Even in very 'good' stud games, with players playing too many hands and going too far with their hands ("Shuffling the burns on 10!"), I seem to get drawn out on far more in stud than in holdem. They are both great games, of course, but in holdem I seem to be able to recover from a couple bad suckouts much faster and easier than in stud.
This can also be attributed to the fact that I have 500 hours in holdem and about 30 hours in cardroom stud.
You wrote:
"Here is what I propose to do. Given my hypothesis that there is nothing more to outplaying your opponents than getting away from losing hands early, that is what I propose to do.
I hereby resolve to give up all semi-bluffing unless I am driving a pot with a draw to the nuts. I further propose to not defend my blinds unless I get hit over the head by the flop. Finally, I will not get bored waiting for a hand and for the flop to hit me."
Your proposals are correct. Getting away from second best hands is a huge factor in low limit games. In addition, I have given up semi-bluffing altogether against most low limit opponents, even on a draw to the nuts because you can almost never knock someone off any hand or get a free card. I want to play my draws as cheaply as I can, they usually pay me off on the river anyway - Especially when the river card flushes their 85s and my AQs.
While I won't defend my blinds, I WILL defend good hands from opponents who semi-bluff. I am running into a lot of opponents who will bet any draw. They play a four flush or an open ender as if it is the nuts. They are easy to read because they always check their strong hands, going for a check-raise, and always bet their draws. I always try to reraise these people or take the free card depending on the situation.
I never call a raise out of the blinds purely as a defensive tatic, unless I know the raiser jams it with weak hands AND I have a good chance to get headsup with him.
What does it matter if you don't let a maniac have your small bet when 5 other people have called? I call, or preferably reraise, out of the blinds depending on the strength of my hand and the pot odds.
I used to worry about giving my opponents a read on my hand, but I notice that they don't seem to care and furthermore, I tend to do better when my opponents think I have a good hand.
I would add this to your resolutions:
"If I think I have the best hand at the moment, I resolve to ensure that my opponents pay the maximum to draw against me."
I may lose more on my suckouts, but I win far more when my hands hold up.
You can always do what I do.
Whenever you walk past a Holdem table, take half the money out our your wallet, throw it on the table for the sharks to split up, and try to slink by grateful they let you keep the rest.
So where are you going to be playing tonight?
Ken
Would it be possible for you to mail me a check?
OK, guys, I give up. Look for me at the Omaha tables.
Do you avoid drawing hands like the plague, or do you like calling raises cold in the back field in a multiway pot with hands like 56o (like you posted on RGP)? Or isn't 56o a drawing hand?
Or make that 54o. Your choice.
M,
I love your posts and respect your logic. But, be warned, several former posters have gone mad debating Rounder on drawng hands, especially suited or non suited.
Perhaps, for the sake of time, stand up walk towards you nearest wall and start banging your head on it. After you stop it will feel better. Hardly the same can be said after you've gone a few rounds banging your head against Rounder. Immovable objects and irresistable force . . .
Thank you Sammy.
I am really not trying to debate Rounder on the merits of drawing hands.
I am just wondering how he can claim he avoids drawing hands like the plague and then turn around and say he thinks calling raises cold in late position with weak drawing hands is a good play.
From all of the threads I have read with Rounder I would imagine if he made this kind of play it's because he had a read on the others, could narrow their range of playable hands in this situation, and if he got a flop that hit him hard it probably wouldn't hit anyone else. Also, and more importantly, it's an easy hand to get away from if it doesn't hit.
I would not agree that they are easy to get away from. Hands like 33 are easy to get away from;on the other hand, connectors can often have you catch a piece of the flop and now because of pot odds, you may find yourself chasing.
skp,
Yeah, sure, that's how you might play it ifindeed you would cold call with 54o in a multiway pot. However, my post was intended to explain Rounder's position. I'm pretty sure he has posted in the past that he doesn't chase longshots even if the pot odds *are* there. So, if he's playing 54o and the flop is anything but, X 2 3, X 3 6, X 5 4, X 5 5, X 5 4, he's folding.
I don't know if he ever made this play. What he did do was support it on RGP after I criticized the recommendation for it Cloutier/McEvoys book Championship Hold'em.
Here I am not really bringing it up to debate the play itself. In fact Oz himself has said that it is a mistake in most games but not by much. So I learned something too.
I just want to know how Rounder can say that it is a good play when he says that he avoids drawing hands like the plague. Again, if this isn't a drawing hand (and a weak one at that) then what the heck is it?
M-The answer to this question is easy. He worships TJ Cloutier.
Finally someone has adequately explained the enigma that is Rounder!
I don't worship anyone - I am an atheist so I don't even have a god in my life.
I happen to subscribe to a certain way of playing poker - it is more like TJ's than Skalnsky - probably cuz I am more of a natural NL HE tournament than a limit type player.
I am having a problem with M post above I can'd seem to bring it up - I'll keep trying and respond as well as I can.
Here is my take on this hand.
I'll go slow - tournament play - if several decent players are limping or calling a raise and you are in "good" chip position it "MAY" be a good play to see the flop with a hand like 54o - reason being with all these decent players in the hand - say 5 - there is a real possibility there are 1/2 the big cards are out leaving the deck rich in smaller cards.
So it might be worth a couple of small bets to see if you can hammer a good flop - that's all - you hit a flop big and the other guys will never put you on the hand so you might very well make a huge pot out of a hand most wouldn't play.
It is not for everyone but it is a play you should have in your bag of tricks if you are gonna play tournament poker at a high level.
If you want to play by the numbers, stepford robotic style - well good on ya - you'll play better than most and win your 1-2 bbs an hour.
But you will never be great.
Rounder! I am surprised at you! I never believed that someone of your stature would ever believe in that 'all the high cards are out' bull crap.
Just because several solid players limp in does NOT mean that they have big cards. Someone could limp in from early position with 66. He might get called next in with JT suited. Someone else might have another small pocket pair, small suited connectors, Ax suited, etc.
In other words, it is nearly equally possible that all the LOW cards are out.
This theory is complete bunk. I always thought that the people who believed in this theory were only the types of players who also believe in moving into a 'lucky' seat or asking for a new deck when they are running cold.
-SmoothB-
I said 56 was the best hand to have against I never said I played it specially to a raise.
I said 56 was the best hand to have against AA I never said I played it specially to a raise.
Some good advice has been given here...I'm no expert, but here is what has been working for me playing Low Limit on Paradise. It may translate to the real world.
1. Game selection has got to be the most important. I like 6-8 Loose passive FISH who limp on more than 50% of thier hands.
2. Abdul says you make your money on your drawing hands. This is 100% true. AKo is weak when 8 people call your raise. The flop is going to hit someone else more often than you.
3. The Art of the Suckout. You'll know you have found the right game when you can play almost any suited cards (within reason), and any pocket pair from any position without the fear of a raise thinning the field. Play where the pot is big enough to support your odds, FOLD WHEN IT ISN'T or you become the FISH.
4. Ramming and Jamming. If you have got the above down, then you can go onto Izmets Ramming and Jamming. I know the EV is there, but I can't handle the variance so I don't do this as often as I should.
I played at a tighter table tonight...Boring...I had to seriously tighten up, and actually play poker. Re-raise to isolate the whole bit. Much less variance. AK was holding up, etc. I made a little over SQUAT.
I play poker to collect chips. I will be sure to turn my fish finder on for tomorrow ;)
Hi,
Love this board. I read the archives last night and the thread on dominated hands contained a stat which I'll assume as true but would like to know how it was attained. In the example, AK vs A9.. it stated that the odds of having a 9 appearing on the board (all the way to the river) as well as no King was 27%. This reminded me of the final hand in this years WSOP. Please help the mathematically challenged.
you can figure them out yourself by reading the post below by Jack Ducafsute. He's got an excellent post about poker math.
Thanks for the help (nt)
Case 1 - Generally I don't try to make moves against people I don't know. You don't know how they will respond. Also, you don't have an image with them that you can profit from. Raising here with a hand like QT suited would be a good move if the blinds are tight, but I would not raise with this hand against passive calling station types. So I would probably limp or throw the hand away until I had some feel for how they play.
Case 2 - Against loose passive calling station types I will be more inclined to limp with playable, but not great hands. Part of the reason for raising with these marginal hands is from the chance that they will fold outright. Another part is to get more action when you DO have a big hand like AA, etc. Since both of these considerations must be thrown out the window against these types of players, don't bother raising.
Just raise with the good hands - they'll pay you off anyway. No need to be deceptive or tricky against them.
-SmoothB-
Get a copy of Mike Petriv's book - I think it's called Holem Odds Book or something like that. It's available through Conjelco. It will tell you everything you need to know about odds. The book is pretty dense with facts and numbers, tho, and not for beginners.
-SmoothB-
I still don't see why one needs a book to figure these things out. Once youve seen the flop figuring out the probability of making a hand is comparitively easy.
Posted by: Fred Monti
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: mk (mk2097@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Beans (adzuki@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: mk (mk2097@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Anon.
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 8:36 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 3:53 a.m.
Posted by: Planet Poker Player (planetplayer@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: snails (snails55@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: SjP
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Big $lick
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 6:36 a.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 9:33 a.m.
Posted by: jg
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 9:17 a.m.
Posted by: Ralph Grace
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:48 a.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: hibiscus
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Michael D (MichaelD8@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Planet Poker Player (planetplayer@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Novastar
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J (kljcorp@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J (kljcorp@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J (kljcorp@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 8:21 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Ed I
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: Planet Poker Player (planetplayer@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 8:09 p.m.
Hand #2: Kd Qd
Flop: Ac 6d 3h
Posted by: matt (mflynn3@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: kurt (betacorp@netzero.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 4:24 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 7:53 p.m.
The pot you'll win will be 5 small bets, so your effective pot odds are 5/3 = 1.6666 to 1.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: kutr (betacorp@netzero.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: darren (darren222@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: x
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 6:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 4:41 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 6:34 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: carlos
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: Planet Poker Player (planetplayer@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Barefoot (Barefootbob44@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: Thomas Drewing
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: jake (jakej@savoncalling.con)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: B.F. Skinner
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Christine
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: Poindexter
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: roGER (Roger_kirkham@Datawatch.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: tom x
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikedahl@gate.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 8:27 a.m.
Posted by: Henry Rollins
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: JPPiquette (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Johan
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 4:15 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 6:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 7:44 a.m.
Posted by: jg
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 8:44 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 11:30 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: tom x
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 5:47 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Mike K.
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:56 a.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: David Rodgers (Ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Raider
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 10:29 a.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Brian
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: DANAZ
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: doogie
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: doogie
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Roger
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Coyote (yote-ugly@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 6:39 a.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mike C.
Posted on: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Mike C.
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 8:01 a.m.
Posted by: Hamster
Posted on: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: CarlWilliamJames (cwjhein@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Bruce K (bkeaton@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: underdagun
Posted on: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs (Topset@webtv.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: marco trevix (trevixget@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 8:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Bruce K (bkeaton@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 9:21 a.m.
Posted by: David
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: FredTheFish
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: FredTheFish
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 6:15 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 9:01 a.m.
Posted by: DJ
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 2:43 a.m.
Posted by: mrq (mrq@idirect.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 7:43 a.m.
Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: mrq (mrq@idirect.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB (smutheb@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at 8:38 p.m.
General Poker Theory
October 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo